DMS

REPORT

DIFFERENTIATED MONITORING AND SUPPORT

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

STATE ALASKA

DATE SEPTEMBER 25, 2023 

IDEA PART B 

CONTENTS

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

MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT ..........................................................................................5

EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION ............................................................................................8

FISCAL MANAGEMENT .........................................................................................................13

DISPUTE RESOLUTION ..........................................................................................................16

STATE ADVISORY PANEL ......................................................................................................23

SIGNIFICANT DISPROPORTIONALITY .....................................................................................25

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................27
400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202-2600

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparedness 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

September 25, 2023 

By Email

Honorable Deena M. Bishop, Ed.D. 

Commissioner of Education 

Alaska Department of Education and Early Development 

801 West 10th Street, #200 

P.O. Box 110500 

Juneau, Alaska 99811 

Email: deed.commissioner@alaska.gov

Dear Commissioner Bishop: 

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 its DMS process, States are monitored on their general 

supervision systems which encompasses 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 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. During the DMS 

process1 OSEP examined the State’s policies and procedures and State-level implementation of these policies 

and procedures regarding the following monitoring priorities and components of general supervision: 

• Monitoring and Improvement

• Data including the State Performance Plan/Annual Performance Report (SPP/APR)

• Fiscal Management: Subrecipient Monitoring

• Dispute Resolution

• Early Childhood Transition

• Child Find

• Significant Disproportionality

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

monitoring priorities and components. OSEP conducted virtual interviews with representatives from the State’s 

Educational Agency (SEA) Alaska Department of Education and Early Development (DEED or State) during 

December 2020, January 2021, and February 2022 through May 2022 and an on-site visit on June 4-10, 2022. 

1

 For additional information on DMS, see Resources for Grantees - DMS. 
Page 2—Chief State School Officer

The interviews included staff from DEED’s special education office, the Division of Education Support 

Services. In addition to staff interviews, OSEP reviewed publicly available information, policies and procedures 

and other related documents DEED submitted to OSEP and as part of the early childhood transition component, 

OSEP had discussions with the Alaska Department of Health (DOH), the lead agency (LA) designated by the 

Governor that is responsible for administering Alaska’s IDEA Part C program, Alaska’s Infant Learning 

Program (ILP). Finally, OSEP solicited feedback from various groups of stakeholders and local level staff in 

order to gather a broad range of perspectives on the State’s system of general supervision. 

Based on its review of available documents, information, and interviews conducted, OSEP has identified 11 

findings of noncompliance with IDEA requirements at the conclusion of our monitoring activities. OSEP is 

making the following findings, listed below, and described in more detail in the monitoring report, including 

any required actions. 

While OSEP has not identified a finding specifically related to the requirements that are part of the data 

component, concerns with the State’s transition data are included in the early childhood transition section of this 

monitoring report. OSEP’s review of monitoring priorities and components of general supervision did not 

include the implementation of the IDEA requirements by all local educational agencies (LEAs) within your 

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. Monitoring and

Improvement

1.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a general supervision system 

that is reasonably designed to ensure the State’s examination of data 

collected through its data system to determine LEA compliance is being 

used for the purposes of identifying noncompliance and verifying 

correction. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600(e). The State does not issue findings of 

noncompliance within a reasonable period of time after the 

noncompliance is identified through a review of its supplemental data 

collection as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 through 

300.602. 

2. Early Childhood

Transition

2.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a reasonably designed general 

supervision system which ensures children with disabilities participating 

in early intervention programs under IDEA Part C and who will 

participate in preschool programs under IDEA Part B experience a 

smooth and effective transition to those preschool programs in a manner 

consistent with IDEA Section 637(a)(9), as required by IDEA Sections 

612(a)(9) and (11) and 616(a), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.124, 300.149, and 

300.600 through 300.602, and 20 U.S.C. 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E). 

2.2 OSEP finds that the State does not have policies and procedures in place 

which ensure that all parents of potentially eligible children with 

disabilities receive notice of their procedural safeguards as required 

under 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a)(1). 
Page 3—Chief State School Officer

MONITORING 

COMPONENT

FINDINGS SUMMARY

3. Fiscal Management: 

Subrecipient Monitoring 

3.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a reasonably designed system, 

policies and procedures, and internal controls for its subrecipient 

monitoring process consistent with 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.332(b), (d)-(f) and 

(h), 200.339, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600. 

3.2 OSEP finds that the State is unable to ensure that every subaward is 

clearly identified to the subrecipient and includes the required 

information consistent with 2 C.F.R § 200.332(a). Specifically, OSEP’s 

review found that DEED’s Grant Award Notice (GAN) does not include 

the subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date as required 

under 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(v). 

4. Dispute Resolution 4.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a system in place to ensure that 

mediation agreements that result in Individualized education program 

(IEP) facilitation are formalized in written mediation agreements as 

required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(6). 

4.2 OSEP finds that the State’s model form and instructions do not meet the 

content requirements under 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b) for filing a due 

process complaint. Specifically, the State’s model form entitled, “Notice 

of Request for Due Process Hearing” requires “Student Address/Phone,” 

and the form does not make clear that inclusion of a phone number is 

either optional or only required as available contact information in the 

case of a child or youth experiencing homelessness or a student who has 

reached the age of majority.

4.3 OSEP finds that the State does not have procedures to ensure that LEAs 

are convening a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of 

the parent’s due process complaint, as required under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a) and does not have a mechanism to track the 30-

day resolution period requirements under 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(b). 

4.4 OSEP finds that the State does not have mechanisms in place to ensure 

due process hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe 

prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed 

by the hearing officer, within a reasonable time set by the State as 

required under IDEA, 34 C.F.R §§ 300.149, 300.511 through 300.514, 

and 300.600. 

4.5 OSEP finds that the State’s policies and procedures related to State 

complaints do not address the award of a remedy for the denial of 

appropriate services, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b). 

5. State Advisory Panel 5.1 OSEP finds the State does not have a State advisory panel (SAP) as 

required by IDEA Sec. 612(a)(21) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.167 through 

300.169. 
Page 4—Chief State School Officer

We appreciate your efforts to ensure compliance and improve results for children with disabilities. If you have 

any questions, please contact your OSEP State Lead. 

Sincerely,

Valerie C. Williams

Director

Office of Special Education Programs

cc: Donald Enoch

Part B State Director

Enclosure: 

DMS Monitoring Report

Appendix
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2023 PAGE 5 

APPENDIX

MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT

During OSEP’s monitoring activities, OSEP and DEED staff used the DMS Integrated Monitoring and 

Sustaining Compliance and Improvement protocols to examine how DEED implements its general supervisory 

responsibility, including how dispute resolution is used to identify and correct noncompliance. 

Legal Requirements

In order to effectively monitor implementation of Part B of the IDEA, as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 

300.600 through 300.602, the State must monitor the improvement of educational results and functional 

outcomes for all children with disabilities, and must ensure compliance with the IDEA, Part B requirements. 

The Part B regulations in 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e) require that, in exercising its monitoring responsibilities under 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600(d), the State must ensure that when it identifies noncompliance with the 

requirements of Part B 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. As explained in 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 (Jul. 24, 2023) (OSEP QA 23-01) and previously noted in OSEP’s 

monitoring, in order to demonstrate that previously identified noncompliance has been corrected, a State must 

verify that each LEA with noncompliance is: (1) correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements 

(i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance with the relevant IDEA requirements) based on a review of updated data 

and information, such as data and information subsequently collected through integrated monitoring activities or 

the State’s data system (systemic compliance); and (2) if applicable, has corrected each individual case of childspecific noncompliance, unless the child is no longer within the jurisdiction of the LEA, and no outstanding 

corrective action exists under a State complaint or due process hearing decision for the child (child-specific 

compliance). (See OSEP QA 23-01, Question B-10). 

If a State examines data through its database and determines that the data shows noncompliance with the 

requirements of the IDEA, the State must make a finding and notify the LEA in writing of the noncompliance, 

and of the requirement that the noncompliance be corrected as soon as possible, but in no case more than one 

year from identification (i.e., the date on which the State provided written notification to the LEA of the 

noncompliance). 

The State’s general supervision system should be reasonably designed to ensure the State examines data 

collected through its data system at regular intervals to determine LEA compliance with IDEA requirements 

(e.g., monthly, quarterly, or annually). This includes reviewing data collected to meet the IDEA reporting 

requirements under the SPP/APR and IDEA Section 616. States should inform LEAs of when and how the data 

system is being used for the purposes of determining compliance and identifying noncompliance. (See OSEP 

QA 23-01, Question A-5).

See Appendix I for a listing of additional legal requirements.

OSEP Analysis

During discussions with OSEP, DEED stated that it fulfills its general supervision responsibilities through onsite monitoring, data system analysis, including SPP/APR indicators and its annual supplemental data 

collection, analysis and review of IDEA requirements beyond the compliance indicators, dispute resolution 

mechanisms, annual determinations, and fiscal oversight (described in later sections), and includes a system of 

identifying and verifying the correction of noncompliance through pre-finding correction, corrective actions and 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 6

MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT

enforcement actions. In addition, DEED explained its monitoring is conducted over a four-year cycle across its 

LEAs and occurs each Fall, generally within the first three months of the school year. In addition to the LEAs 

identified within the four-year monitoring cycle, Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Matsu are visited annually, and the 

Kenai LEA is visited every other year because of the size of their fiscal allocations. The State’s on-site 

monitoring activities are conducted over two-to-three days and include a review of randomly selected student 

files using the State’s Monitoring Standard tool. The Monitoring Standard tool is an Excel spreadsheet, which is 

used as a checklist when conducting student file reviews and includes a list of various IDEA requirements.

In addition to its cyclical monitoring, the State reported that it may conduct a special monitoring activity or 

schedule a technical assistance (TA) visit to one or more LEAs, when warranted. These on-site visits usually 

occur when an LEA receives a determination of Needs Intervention, has findings of noncompliance resulting 

from a State complaint decision, or has a high level of risk as determined by the State’s risk assessment. OSEP 

could not determine whether the State identifies noncompliance or issues findings during this process.

OSEP noted the following deficiencies in the State’s practices:

Identification and Correction of Noncompliance

The State does not have policies and procedures to ensure LEA compliance with IDEA requirements when the 

State examines, or reviews, data collected through its data system. OSEP reviewed State submitted documents 

and DEED confirmed in interviews how its supplemental data collection is used to identify noncompliance.

Each year, LEAs are required to submit data for the State’s IDEA Part B SPP/APR, Indicators B-7 (Pre-school 

Outcomes), B-11 (Timely Initial Evaluations), B-12 (Early Childhood Transition), and B-13 (Secondary 

Transition) through the State’s Supplemental Workbook. LEAs must submit the Supplemental Workbook to the 

SEA on July 15 of each year and include data for the full Federal fiscal year (FFY) reporting period (July 1 

through June 30). In addition to SPP/APR indicator data, LEAs include in the State’s Supplemental Workbook 

private school child find data, specifically the number of students evaluated, eligible for services, and receiving 

services. After LEAs submit the annual supplemental data, the State conducts a quality control review by 

comparing each LEA’s submitted data to the LEA’s previous year’s data. In circumstances where there are data 

anomalies or inconsistencies, the State will follow up with the LEA to resolve any anomalies before the data are 

considered final.

When noncompliance is identified (i.e., data less than 100 percent) through the collection of data used to report 

on IDEA Part B SPP/APR compliance Indicators B-11, B-12, and B-13, the LEA is made aware that their data 

is less than 100 percent and is provided technical assistance (TA). The State reported that although written 

findings of noncompliance are not issued as part of this process, in most cases, it can verify correction of 

noncompliance through reviewing the data in the State’s Supplemental Workbook that is reviewed subsequent 

to when the noncompliance occurred or through cyclical monitoring. However, DEED was unable to 

demonstrate the timely correction for all identified noncompliance based on OSEP’s review of the State’s 

Supplemental Workbook and staff interviews. For example, the State could not account for LEAs with 

noncompliant data in the State’s Supplemental Workbook that were not currently identified for programmatic 

monitoring.

The State’s practice of providing TA, rather than issuing written findings of noncompliance, when it has 

identified noncompliance in its data system is inconsistent IDEA Part B requirements. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.600

and OSEP QA 23-01, Question A-5. Additionally, because the State is not issuing written findings of 

noncompliance, OSEP is concerned about the accuracy of the data provided in the SPP/APR regarding the 

number of findings identified and timely corrected.
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 7 

MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT

Conclusion and Action Required

OSEP’s analysis is based on the documents and information provided by the State and interviews with State 

staff and other stakeholders. Based on this analysis, OSEP finds that: 

1.1 DEED does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to ensure the State’s 

examination of data collected through its data system to determine LEA compliance is being used for the 

purposes of identifying noncompliance and verifying correction. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600(e). The State 

does not issue findings of noncompliance within a reasonable period of time after the noncompliance is 

identified through a review of its supplemental data collection as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 

and 300.600 through 300.602. 

Required Actions

Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 

1. Updated policies and procedures documenting the State’s process for reviewing the information in its 

data system to determine compliance. In addition, the State must submit monitoring policies which 

reflect when the State will examine data collected from its data system to determine LEA compliance 

with IDEA requirements (e.g., monthly, quarterly, or annually). 

Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring 

report the State must submit to OSEP: 

1. Evidence of timely identification and verification of correction of noncompliance consistent with the 

State’s updated policies and procedures for identifying noncompliance in a timely manner using its data 

system, including examples from the State’s Supplemental Workbook where an LEA’s data 

demonstrated noncompliance and evidence of how the State responded (i.e., a letter or report of 

noncompliance, evidence of correction such as a CAP, individual child-level correction, or other 

mechanisms the State uses to verify correction).
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 8 

EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION

EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION 

During OSEP’s monitoring activities, OSEP conducted interviews with State personnel, including staff from 

DEED and DOH regarding transition from early intervention programs under IDEA Part C to IDEA Part B 

Section 619 preschool programs (Section 619). In addition, OSEP’s interviews also included a discussion of the 

State’s implementation of the child find requirements under Part B and Part C of IDEA. DEED and DOH both

identified the referral process, from IDEA Part C to IDEA Section 619, as a barrier to implementing the child 

find requirements. 

Legal Requirements

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.124, the State must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that: 

(a) Children participating in early intervention programs assisted under IDEA Part C, and who will 

participate in preschool programs assisted under IDEA Part B, experience a smooth and effective 

transition to preschool programs consistent with 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.209(d)(1)(i) and 303.209(d)(1)(ii); 

(b) By the child’s third birthday, an IEP or, if consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(b), an IFSP, has been 

developed and is being implemented for the child consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.101(b); and 

(c) Each affected LEA will participate in transition planning conferences arranged by the designated lead 

agency under 34 C.F.R. § 303.120. 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.124, the SEA must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure children participating 

in IDEA Part C early intervention, and who are potentially eligible for preschool programs under Section 619, 

experience a smooth and effective transition to those programs. The Part C State lead agency’s transition 

notification to the SEA and appropriate LEA must be treated as a referral under Part B. 

Upon receipt of the referral from Part C, the LEA must provide the child’s parent with a copy of the procedural 

safeguards notice as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.504. Further, the LEA must take one of two actions. If the 

LEA suspects the child has a disability under IDEA Part B, the LEA must request the parent’s consent to 

conduct an initial evaluation to determine the child’s eligibility for services under Part B (34 C.F.R. § 300.300) 

and, if the parent provides consent, conduct the evaluation. If the LEA does not suspect that the child has a 

disability under IDEA Part B, the LEA must provide the parent written notice consistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.503 which explains, among other things, the basis for its decision and a statement that the 

parents have protections under the IDEA Part B procedural safeguards. These safeguards include the parent’s 

right to request a due process hearing or file a State complaint if the parent believes the LEA should evaluate the 

child. 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.149(d), SEAs are responsible for the general supervision of all educational programs for 

children with disabilities administered within the State, including each educational program administered by 

any other State or local agency (but not including elementary schools and secondary schools for Indian children 

operated or funded by the Secretary of the Interior), and including Section 619 special education preschool 

programs. Additionally, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.601(b), States must collect valid and reliable data, 

which includes data on preschool-aged children with disabilities under Section 619, for the purpose of meeting 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 9 

EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION

Federal IDEA reporting requirements, including those under IDEA Section 6182

 and under IDEA Sections 616 

and 642, such as the SPP/APR. 

OSEP Analysis

The State, as required under IDEA, has an interagency agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Agreement 

(MOA) in place between the IDEA Part B Section 619 program within DEED and the IDEA Part C program, 

within DOH. During OSEP’s DMS monitoring activities, DEED and DOH informed OSEP that the State was in 

the process of updating the 2016 MOA to strengthen coordination and clarify roles and responsibilities between 

the two agencies. On July 1, 2023, OSEP reviewed and approved the revised MOA through the Alaska IDEA 

Part C grant letter, under Section II.A.10. 

OSEP noted the following deficiencies in the State’s practices: 

The SEA does not have policies and procedures to ensure that children participating in IDEA Part C early 

intervention who are potentially eligible for preschool programs under IDEA Part B, experience a smooth and 

effective transition. DEED staff confirmed that when DOH provides the requisite transition notification under 

34 C.F.R. 303.209(b), DEED is not treating this as a referral and ensuring that the procedural safeguards 

notification is provided to parents as part of the child find referral process. OSEP learned from stakeholders and 

DEED staff that one challenge is ensuring that LEAs implement child find as a year-round process rather than a 

one-time activity at the beginning of each school year. 

While DEED staff informed OSEP that its early childhood transition procedures are documented in the State’s 

Special Education Handbook, OSEP notes that the requirement for LEAs to provide the procedural safeguards 

notice to parents is not clear from either State or local policies. Specifically, the only reference to early 

childhood transition in Alaska’s Special Education Handbook states: 

School districts will receive notification of all children served under Part C prior to turning three 

[3] years of age unless the parents “opt out” of this referral process. This notification constitutes 

a referral for special education services. A transition meeting should be scheduled. Any 

evaluations that may be needed to determine if the child is eligible for Part B services should be 

discussed at that time. 

Additionally, although the revised transition MOA between DEED and DOH addresses the requirement to 

provide a copy of the procedural safeguards notice to parents of potentially eligible children with disabilities

upon referral from Part C, DEED’s Special Education Handbook does not include this same requirement for its 

LEAs.

3

 Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a)(1), a copy of the procedural safeguards must be given to the parents upon 

initial referral for evaluation. Because DEED does not act on all notifications from the Part C LA, it is unclear 

to OSEP if all parents of potentially eligible children with disabilities receive their procedural safeguards as

required. In addition, DEED could not verify that personnel from its LEAs attend the transition conference 

2

 Section 618 of IDEA requires that each State submit data about the infants and toddlers, birth through age 2, who receive early 

intervention services under Part C of IDEA and children with disabilities, ages 3 through 21, who receive special education and 

related services under Part B of IDEA.

3

 Based on Alaska’s IDEA Part C eligibility definition, OSEP would reasonably expect that most children who have been served 

under IDEA Part C are highly likely to be eligible for IDEA Part B Section 619 preschool services. Eligibility for Part C is 

determined through an evaluation/assessment conducted by the local ILP. Children, from birth to 36 months, who meet one of the 

following criteria are eligible: (1) Developmental delay of 50 percent or greater in one or more areas of development; (2) Disabling 

condition with a high probability of resulting in a 50 percent or greater developmental delay; (3) Child's development appears 

atypical, and a multi-disciplinary team determines that the child is likely to have a severe developmental delay.
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 10

EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION

arranged by the LA, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.124(c), which can also impact whether parents receive the 

required procedural safeguards.

Monitoring and Oversight of Local Policies and Procedures

According to DEED staff, in addition to the Special Education Handbook, LEAs have their own policies and 

procedures in place, as well as Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) with local ILPs that provide direct early 

intervention services. Each district is responsible for staff training and professional development related to early 

childhood transition requirements. DEED provides districts with an optional MOU template and provides TA 

when requested, however DEED does not routinely review local MOUs, policies and procedures, or training 

materials as part of its oversight and general supervision of Part B Section 619. Regardless of who the State 

contracts with or who the LEAs have an MOU with to implement the early childhood transition requirements, 

the SEA is responsible for monitoring, oversight and ensuring the implementation of IDEA.

DEED reported that the early childhood transition requirements are monitored using the State’s Monitoring 

Standard tool. This tool is used to review student files and determine if an IEP was developed and implemented 

by the child’s third birthday, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.124(b). State staff confirmed, however, that the 

monitoring tool does not include any element to review whether LEAs participate in transition planning 

conferences. Further, DEED was unable to provide any documentation such as monitoring reports, letters of 

finding, or corrective actions, to demonstrate that oversight is occurring for this requirement. DEED indicated 

that even though it does not have a specific mechanism to track this information, the State believes that, 

generally, LEAs are attending transition conferences when invited. State staff acknowledged that there are 

circumstances where the LEA has not been invited to the transition conference, and is, therefore, unaware that a 

transition conference is scheduled. Staff also acknowledged that the transition MOA in place at the time of 

OSEP’s monitoring activities was not being implemented as written.

Collecting and Reporting Valid and Reliable Data

As it relates to implementation of local procedure and practices, DEED acknowledged that it is aware of some 

issues specifically related to the LEA notification and referral process and discussed how these issues impact the 

State’s ability to collect and report valid and reliable data. Because DEED had concerns about the accuracy of 

the Part C referral data, DEED chose to use LEA level data for notification of potentially eligible children with 

disabilities rather than data provided by DOH. DEED attributes the differences between the number of children 

referred by the Part C program prior to age three and the data DEED receives from LEAs to confusion about 

when a notification constitutes a referral. State staff also reported that, even though they believe the LEA data 

are more accurate than the data DEED receives from DOH, the LEA data cannot always be verified due to lack 

of source documents (i.e., a copy of the LEA notification).

A key part of a State’s monitoring and general supervisory responsibilities under IDEA is the collection and 

submission of valid and reliable data, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.601(b). DEED, as the SEA, is 

responsible for the monitoring and general supervision of its Section 619 programs and must have a system in 

place to ensure those programs are complying with IDEA Part B requirements, including the submission of 

valid and reliable data related to children with disabilities ages three through five under Section 619. DEED was 

unable to provide any evidence such as monitoring reports, letters of finding, or corrective actions, to 

demonstrate that it has a mechanism in place to ensure that it is collecting valid and reliable data related to its 

Section 619 programs.
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 11 

EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION

Conclusion and Action Required 

OSEP’s analysis is based on the documents and information provided by the State and interviews with State

staff and other stakeholders. Based on this analysis, OSEP finds that: 

2.1 The State does not have a reasonably designed general supervision system to ensure children with 

disabilities participating in early intervention programs under IDEA Part C and who will participate in 

preschool programs under IDEA Part B experience a smooth and effective transition to those preschool 

programs in a manner consistent with IDEA Section 637(a)(9), as required by IDEA Sections 612(a)(9) 

and (11) and 616(a), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.124, 300.149, and 300.600 through 300.602, and 20 U.S.C. 

1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E). These monitoring responsibilities include: 

a. Monitoring to ensure that the child find process is being implemented year-round;

b. Validating early childhood transition data; and

c. Ensuring documentation regarding LEAs attending early childhood transition conferences and

other implementation of key IDEA early childhood transition requirements.

2.2 The State does not have policies and procedures in place which ensure that all parents of potentially 

eligible children with disabilities receive notice of their procedural safeguards as required under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a)(1). 

Required Actions

Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 

1. Policies, procedures, and protocols for:

a. Monitoring LEAs including protocols or reviews for ensuring that the child find process being

implemented year-round;

b. Validating SPP/APR early childhood transition data for Indicator 12; and

c. Implementing key IDEA early childhood transition requirements consistent with the

requirements found at 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.124, 300.149, and 300.600 through 300.602, including

procedures for documenting LEAs’ attendance in early childhood transition conferences.

2. A revised State policy (and updated Special Education Handbook) requiring that all parents of

potentially eligible children with disabilities receive notice of their procedural safeguards as required

under 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a)(1) upon initial referral by IDEA Part C for children transitioning from Part

C to Part B.

Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring 

report the State must submit to OSEP: 

1. Evidence that the State has monitored its LEAs on the implementation of the early childhood transition

requirements through new or revised practices in the revised MOA such as, notification letters,

monitoring reports, letters of findings, examples of findings related to early childhood transition, closeout reports and/or verification of correction letters, or other supporting documentation demonstrating

oversight of its LEAs;

2. Examples of actual notifications from Part C to Part B and documentation of the provision of the

procedural safeguards to parents upon notification, transition meetings and IDEA Part B eligibility

meetings being held within timelines;
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 12

EARLY CHILDHOOD TRANSITION

3. The State will provide with its FFY 2022 SPP/APR, due February 1, 2024, an explanation of how its 

data for Indicator B-12 are valid and reliable and reflect the measurement. The explanation should 

include a discussion of the methodology used by the State to verify the validity and reliability of the data 

for B-12 (the percentage of children referred by Part C prior to age 3, who are found eligible for Part B, 

and who have an IEP developed and implemented by their third birthdays); and

4. Documentation demonstrating the State level training provided to LEAs on the early childhood 

transition procedures such as, presentation materials, attendance logs, calendar and dates of trainings 

provided.
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 13 

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

During OSEP’s monitoring activities, OSEP and DEED staff used the IDEA Part B subrecipient monitoring 

protocol to examine how DEED implements its general supervisory responsibility, including monitoring to 

ensure compliance with both fiscal and programmatic requirements.

Legal Requirements

Under IDEA and the Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (OMB Uniform Guidance), SEAs are responsible for 

oversight of the operations of IDEA-supported activities. Each SEA must monitor its own activities, and those 

of its LEAs to ensure compliance with applicable Federal requirements and that performance expectations are 

being achieved.

In order to meet its general supervisory responsibilities, the State must evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of 

noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of 

determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring as required under 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(b). The monitoring 

activities must ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, 

regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved as 

required under the OMB Uniform Guidance at 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(d) and (e), and IDEA in 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.600, and 300.604. 

Further, under 2 C.F.R. § 200.303(a), the State is required to establish and maintain effective internal control 

over its IDEA grant awards that provides reasonable assurance that the State is managing those awards in 

compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of those IDEA awards.

See Appendix I for a listing of additional legal requirements.

OSEP Analysis

During OSEP’s monitoring activities, OSEP and DEED staff discussed how the State implements its general 

supervisory responsibility, including subrecipient monitoring to ensure compliance with both fiscal and 

programmatic requirements. OSEP and DEED fiscal staff discussed the State’s risk assessment, LEA grant 

application process, audit process, its fiscal monitoring of LEAs, its grant management system (GMS) and 

reimbursement process and reviewed its grant award notification (GAN). 

OSEP examined the State’s compliance with fiscal subrecipient monitoring requirements to ensure oversight of 

the operations of IDEA-supported activities. Specifically, OSEP and DEED discussed the State’s fiscal 

monitoring system to ensure that DEED monitors the activities of its 54 LEAs to assure compliance with 

applicable Federal requirements. DEED reported it completes its fiscal monitoring activities with each LEA 

annually. To complete its fiscal monitoring the State reported it: 1) completes an annual risk assessment of its 

LEAs, 2) verifies the grant assurances and LEAs’ budgets through the grant application process and 3) reviews 

reimbursement request from LEAs. 

The State developed a risk assessment in response to the required actions from OSEP’s 2015 fiscal monitoring 

visit. The State’s risk assessment consists of two scores. The first score is a program risk score based on factors 

such as staff turnover, staff attendance at trainings, and significant findings from State or Federal monitoring. 

The second score is the “Financial and Administration Risk Score” which is calculated by the State’s audit 

office. Based on the combined scores DEED may provide TA (telephonic or web-based), individualized 

assistance, or on-site monitoring. Currently, all LEAs receive telephone or web-basedTA, which consists of 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 14

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

information and instruction on policies and procedures on the operation of the GMS system and applicable State 

regulations.

The State reported it uses its grant application process to monitor its LEAs’ compliance with fiscal 

requirements. Annually each LEA submits its application by the end of April, using the State’s GMS. DEED 

then reviews and approves the LEA-submitted budgets and budget narratives. The State’s application review 

process includes 50 assurances; however only one assurance (excess costs) is directly related to IDEA fiscal 

requirements.4 LEAs also complete a GMS grantee checklist during the application process. The checklist 

addresses how LEAs code expenses, whether expenses are allowable by examination of the detail provided in 

its budget narrative, indirect cost information, and whether the total allocation is accounted for in the budget.

DEED also demonstrated its reimbursement process for distributing Part B funds to its LEAs. As reimbursement 

requests are submitted, the grant manager compares the submitted expenditure to the LEA’s approved budget. If

a cost is questionable, the grant manager will contact DEED special education staff to discuss the proposed 

expenditure.

OSEP noted the following deficiencies in the State’s practices:

While the State explained its application and reimbursement processes, it did not describe a mechanism or 

provide evidence of monitoring its subgrantees, or LEAs, to ensure compliance with applicable Federal fiscal 

requirements, including the time and effort, procurement, physical inventory of property, use of IDEA Part B 

funds for coordinated early intervening services (CEIS), the purchase of equipment, and the financial and 

programmatic record retention requirements. 2 C.F.R. § 200.332. Additionally, while State grant management 

staff review reimbursement requests in relation to the approved budget, DEED was unable to provide evidence 

that any of the actual expenditures are verified through supporting documentation.

Under 2 C.F.R. § 200.403(a) and (g), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately 

documented, and charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately 

reflect the work performed and supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurances 

that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated consistent with 2 C.F.R. § 200.430(i)(1). The 

OMB Uniform Guidance requirement at 2 C.F.R. § 200.407 requires that prior written approval must be sought 

in advance of certain costs being charged to the Federal grant and as the pass-through entity, DEED has the 

authority to review and approve certain items of costs from its subrecipients and must have policies and 

procedures in place that support that review and approval process. Under 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.334 and 200.337, 

DEED’s subrecipients are required to maintain financial records and make them available for review by the 

Department or DEED. In addition, 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.313 and 200.314 address the use, management, and 

disposition of equipment as well as an inventory of equipment and supplies. Finally, under 34 C.F.R. § 300.226, 

the State must ensure the activities carried out in implementing coordinated early intervening services.

Additionally, during its review of DEED’s fiscal subrecipient monitoring and oversight, OSEP identified issues 

related to DEED’s Special Education Grant Award Notification (GAN) as generated through its GMS. Under

2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a), as a pass-through entity, DEED must ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to 

the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information as specified by 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(i)-(xiii) at 

the time of the subaward, and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward 

4 On July 29, 2022, OSEP and DEED held a subsequent meeting and discussed the State’s process of implementing the LEA 

maintenance of effort requirements which included a review the State’s policies and procedures for the eligibility standard and the 

compliance standard as well as the application of the LEA MOE exceptions as described in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.203 and 300.204.
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 15

FISCAL MANAGEMENT

modification. OSEP’s review of sample GANs found that DEED’s GAN does not include the requirement under 

2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(v), subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date.

Conclusion and Action Required

OSEP’s analysis is based on the documents and information provided by the State and interviews with State

staff and other stakeholders. Based on this analysis, OSEP finds that:

3.1 The State does not have a reasonably designed system, policies and procedures, and internal controls for 

its subrecipient monitoring process consistent with 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.332(b), (d)-(f) and (h), 200.339, 

200.403 and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600; and

3.2 The State is unable to ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient and includes 

the required information consistent with 2 C.F.R § 200.332(a). Specifically, OSEP’s review found that 

DEED’s GAN does not include the requirement under 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(v), subaward Period of 

Performance Start and End Date.

Required Actions

Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 

1. Policies and Procedures for fiscal monitoring consistent with the requirements of IDEA and the Uniform 

Guidance Requirements at 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.332(b), (d)-(f) and (h) and 200.339, and 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600. The following requirements are examples of topics that could be 

included in fiscal monitoring policies and procedures:

a. Allowable costs consistent with 2 C.F.R. § 200.403(a) and (g);

b. Time and Effort charges for personnel duties consistent with 2 C.F.R. § 200.430(b);

c. Prior written approval process under 2 C.F.R. § 200.407;

d. Records and Information management to ensure fiscal records are maintained in compliance with 

2 C.F.R. §§ 200.303(e), 200.333, and 200.336(a);

e. Equipment and inventory of items purchased using Federal IDEA Part B funds consistent with 

2 C.F.R. §§ 200.313 and 200.314; and

f. The activities carried out in implementing coordinated early intervening services under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.226; and

2. Evidence of revised IDEA GANs that include the information as required by 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a), 

specifically the period of performance as required in 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a)(1)(v).

Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring 

report the State must submit to OSEP:

1. Evidence that it has implemented its fiscal monitoring procedures as described under the first corrective 

action. Evidence should include completed fiscal monitoring reports, checklists or other tools developed 

by the State to document fiscal monitoring activities, and any letters of findings and documentation to 

verify the correction of any noncompliance that the State has developed and implemented.
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 16 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

During OSEP’s monitoring activities, OSEP and DEED staff used the DMS Dispute Resolution protocols to 

examine how DEED implements its dispute resolution procedures, including State complaints, mediation, and 

due process procedures.

Legal Requirements

Procedural Safeguards 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a), a copy of the procedural safeguards must be provided to the parents of a child 

with a disability only one time a school year, except that a copy also must be provided to the parents: 

1. Upon initial referral or parent request for evaluation; 

2. Upon receipt of the first State complaint as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 through 300.153 and 

upon receipt of the first due process complaint as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.507 in a school year; 

3. In accordance with the discipline procedures in 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(h); and 

4. Upon request by a parent. 

The State may place a current copy of the procedural safeguards notice on its website and must ensure that the 

notice meets the understandable language requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(c). A State’s procedural 

safeguards must be written in a language understandable to the general public and be provided in the native 

language of the parent or other mode of communication used by the parent, unless it is clearly not feasible to do 

so. If the native language, or other mode of communication of the parent, is not a written language, the State 

must take steps to ensure: 

1. That the notice is translated orally or by other means to the parent in his or her native language or other 

mode of communication; 

2. That the parent understands the content of the notice; and 

3. That there is written evidence that these requirements have been met.

State’s Model Forms 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.509, each State must develop model forms to assist parents and public agencies in filing 

a due process complaint in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507(a) and 300.508(a) through (c). 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 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b) for filing a due process complaint. 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b) the content of the due process complaint must include: 

1. The name of the child;

2. The address of the residence of the child; 

3. The name of the school the child is attending; 

4. In the case of a homeless child or youth (within the meaning of section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11434a(2)), available contact information for the child, and the 

name of the school the child is attending; 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 17 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

5. A description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed or refused initiation or 

change, including facts relating to the problem; and 

6. A proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time. 

Mediation 

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 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 such agency. 

Resolution Meeting and Timelines

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a), the LEA must convene a resolution meeting no later than 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. If the LEA has not resolved the due process complaint by no later than 30 days of 

receiving the complaint, the due process hearing may occur. There are certain adjustments to the timelines that 

are expressly contemplated in the regulations. 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c). No later than 45 days after the resolution 

period or the allowable adjusted period, the hearing must occur, a final decision reached, and a copy of the 

decision mailed to each of the parties. 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a). 

Due Process Hearing Decisions

Under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511 through 300.514, due process hearing decisions must be implemented within the 

timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within 

a reasonable timeframe set by the State. The SEA, pursuant to its general supervisory responsibility under 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600, must ensure that the public agency involved in the due process hearing 

implements the hearing officer’s decision in a timely manner, unless either party appeals the decision. 

State Complaints 

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. 

In resolving a complaint in which the SEA has found a failure to provide appropriate services, an SEA, pursuant 

to its general supervisory authority under Part B of the Act 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. The SEA, consistent with its 

general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities, must ensure that the public agency involved in the 

complaint implements the decision in a timely manner as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600. 

In addition, a State’s responsibility to ensure implementation of a final decision in a State complaint resolution 

generally would continue until the ordered corrective action has been implemented. OSEP clarified in its 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 18 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

October 23, 2019, Letter to Anonymous that generally, any outstanding corrective action ordered through a 

State complaint or due process hearing to remedy the denial of appropriate services must be completed, 

notwithstanding the child’s relocation to another State, if the ordered relief can reasonably be implemented in 

the new State and the parent does not reject the remaining services under the ordered relief. 

See Appendix I for a listing of additional legal requirements.

OSEP Analysis

Procedural Safeguards 

During OSEP’s monitoring, DEED described how it implements the State’s procedural safeguards, including its 

dispute resolution system. OSEP staff reviewed documents submitted by DEED and those available on the 

State’s website. The documents reviewed included the Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, 

Notice of Procedural Safeguards, Parental Rights for Special Education and Alaska’s Special Education Parent’s 

Guide. DEED indicated that the Alaska State Department of Education’s Procedural Safeguards Notice is

provided to parents through its LEAs, at the time of the initial evaluation, the initial IEP meeting, and then 

referenced at every IEP meeting thereafter.

Although the State’s written procedures appear consistent with IDEA requirements and outline when parents 

must receive the procedural safeguards notice, OSEP received allegations that parents were not aware of their 

rights, including available dispute resolution options. Specifically, during interviews, a number of DEED staff 

members and contractors, LEA personnel, representatives from the State’s Parent Training and Information 

Center (PTI), and parents of children with disabilities reported that parents were not consistently provided with 

a notice of their procedural safeguards in their native language, unless it is clearly not feasible to do so. Parents 

also were often unaware of their rights to use IDEA’s State complaint, mediation, and due process hearing 

procedures to resolve disagreements with the public agency. Several parents indicated that the dispute resolution 

options were not explained to them and reported that to resolve State complaints, including complaints 

regarding the provision of special education services, many parents would direct their complaints only to their 

local school board. Further, parents in the focus groups reported they believe, overall, that the dispute resolution 

process is inaccessible for a large number of parents throughout the State, especially in rural areas where 

English is not the native language. 

OSEP confirmed during interviews with the State and discussions with LEA personnel that the procedural 

safeguards were not consistently provided to parents in their native language. When asked if the State provided 

its procedural safeguards notice in different languages, the State reported that if an LEA needed the procedural 

safeguards to be translated into a different language, the LEA would contact the Anchorage School District, to 

translate and provide the procedural safeguards notice in the required language. The State also reported that in 

addition to working with the Anchorage School District, they have contracted with an outside entity to orally 

interpret the procedural safeguards notice when requested. DEED staff shared that when utilizing the contractor 

for the oral translation, the process requires an extra day to obtain a translator to provide the service. 

State Model Forms 

As stated above, OSEP reviewed documents submitted by the State including their Procedural Safeguards, 

which includes a copy of the State’s model form. The State’s model form appeared to include all the required 

content under 34 C.F.R. §300.153(b). However, the form also appears to require that the student’s phone 

number be provided. When asked, State personnel indicated that this was included for youth who reach the age 

of majority. A phone number, while a reasonable request (especially during the recent pandemic), is not part of 

the required content for a due process complaint unless it is part of the available contact information for a 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 19

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

homeless child or youth, including a youth who has reached the age of majority. If the model form requests 

information beyond what is required, the State must either label it as “optional” or use other language 

explaining the limited circumstances under which the complainant is required to provide that information. 

Mediation

In addition, it is unclear whether DEED ensures that parents are aware that they can request mediation as a 

dispute resolution option. DEED offers both mediation and IEP facilitation as two options available to parents 

in Alaska for resolving conflicts that arise during the special education process. DEED has an established 

contract with an outside attorney who serves as the State’s mediator and handles all mediation and IEP 

facilitation requests. OSEP reviewed the State’s contract and conducted an interview with the contractor to 

obtain more information about the State’s process. The contractor reported that the agreement to provide 

mediation and IEP facilitation services has been in place since 1997, and that there are currently a total of four 

mediators across the State who operate under the contract. When asked to describe the nature and purpose of the 

services provided to parents seeking assistance in resolving issues with LEAs, the contractor stated that the 

issues varied from disputes regarding conflicts with the service providers to disputes regarding service 

provision. When describing the process used to determine whether mediation or IEP facilitation was most 

appropriate in resolving conflicts between parents and LEAs, the contractor stated that most parents do not 

know the difference between IEP facilitation and mediation, and therefore do not know which option is most 

appropriate in resolving their issue. The processes are described to parents, and the contractor provides guidance 

regarding which would be more appropriate.

OSEP requested the number of facilitated IEP meetings that have occurred over the last three years and any 

documentation or guidelines addressing the process that the mediators use when working with families who 

have requested mediation; however, the State was unable to provide this information.

If a parent requests mediation and the parties determine IEP facilitation is appropriate, then the decision to 

provide IEP facilitation should be documented in a formal mediation agreement. During OSEP’s monitoring 

activities, DEED was unable to provide evidence of written mediation agreements that resulted in IEP

facilitation. The failure to document mediation agreements in writing is inconsistent with 

34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(6).

Resolution Meeting and Timelines

During the on-site discussion, DEED staff informed OSEP that it runs the resolution meeting timeline 

concurrent or within the 45-day due process timeline, and therefore was not providing for a separate resolution 

period. As a result, DEED does not have a method in place to determine whether LEAs have met the timeline to 

convene a resolution meeting as required in 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a) or to determine the beginning of the due 

process hearing timelines.

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a), the LEA must convene a resolution meeting no later than 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. If the LEA has not resolved the due process complaint by no later than 30 days of 

receiving the complaint, the due process hearing may occur. While a State may provide additional protections to 

parents of children with disabilities that are more protective than what IDEA requires, it may not lessen the 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 20 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

IDEA protections. OSEP believes that not providing for a resolution meeting and resolution period denies 

parents and LEAs the opportunity to resolve the dispute prior to a hearing.5

Due Process Hearing Decisions 

OSEP and DEED also discussed the oversight of the implementation of the final due process hearing officers’ 

decisions. DEED stated that it does not have a formal mechanism in place to ensure that hearing decisions are 

implemented in a timely manner. DEED noted that it may hear from a parent if the hearing decision was not 

implemented, and that if the State becomes aware that a hearing decision has not been implemented, DEED

staff will follow up with the LEA to address the issue, as appropriate.

To ensure that students with disabilities are provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) without undue 

delay, due process hearing decisions must be implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing

officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe consistent 

with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511-300.514. DEED is not, pursuant to its general supervisory responsibility under 

34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600, ensuring that the public agency involved in the due process hearing 

implements the hearing officer’s decision in a timely manner, unless either party appeals the decision. Finally, if 

necessary to achieve compliance from the LEA, there is no evidence of DEED using any appropriate 

enforcement actions consistent with its general supervisory responsibility under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600 and 

300.608. 

State Complaints 

OSEP staff reviewed Alaska’s State complaint decisions for the last three years. State complaint 22-07 

addressed a denial of FAPE for a student who moved to a different LEA within the State. Specifically, the State 

found the LEA failed to provide related services as set forth in the child’s IEP. However, when considering the 

need for compensatory education, the complaint decision stated, “The student is now enrolled in a neighboring 

school district. Under these circumstances, the [school district] cannot in a straightforward fashion compensate 

the student for its IEP implementation failures by providing additional ‘compensatory’ services, since the 

provision of physical therapy and special education/related services/academic services is now under the 

jurisdiction of another school district.”

In resolving a complaint in which the State has found a failure to provide appropriate services, DEED, pursuant 

to its general supervisory authority under Part B of the Act 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. Based on OSEP’s discussions with 

DEED and OSEP’s review of State’s documentation and complaint decisions, DEED was not able to 

demonstrate that its policies, procedures, or practices addresses the failure to provide appropriate services in 

resolving complaints that have raised the issue. In addition, DEED has not demonstrated that it is, consistent 

with its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities, ensuring that the public agency involved in the 

complaint implements the decision in a timely manner as required under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600. 

DEED was unable to provide policies and procedures which ensure that, any outstanding corrective action 

ordered through a State complaint or due process hearing to remedy the denial of appropriate services is being 

5

 As a greater parental protection, a State could shorten the 45-day due process hearing timelines as long as all other parental hearing 

rights are not affected, including the ability of a hearing officer to grant specific extensions at the request of a party.
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 21 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

completed, notwithstanding the child’s relocation to another State, if the ordered relief can reasonably be 

implemented in the new State and the parent does not reject the remaining services under the ordered relief. 

In resolving State complaint 22-07, in which DEED had found a failure to provide appropriate services, the 

State appears to have assumed, without investigation or specific findings, that the previous district could not 

contract or otherwise arrange for the student to receive compensatory services in the new district, but at the 

previous district’s expense. In so doing, the State improperly excused its failure to properly address and order 

appropriate relief in this State complaint decision.

Conclusion and Action Required

OSEP’s analysis is based on the documents and information provided by the State, and interviews with State

staff and other stakeholders. Based on this analysis, OSEP finds that: 

4.1 The State does not have a system in place to ensure that mediation agreements that result in IEP 

facilitation are formalized in written mediation agreements as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(6);

4.2 The State’s model form and instructions do not meet the content requirements under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b) for filing a due process complaint. Specifically, the State’s model form entitled, 

“Notice of Request for Due Process Hearing” requires “Student Address/Phone,” and the form does not 

make clear that inclusion of a phone number is either optional or only required as available contact 

information in the case of a homeless child or youth or a student who has reached the age of majority; 

4.3 The State does not have procedures to ensure that LEAs are convening a resolution meeting within 15 

days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(a) 

or tracking the 30-day resolution period requirements under 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(b); 

4.4 The State does not have mechanisms in place to ensure due process hearing decisions are implemented 

within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is no timeframe prescribed by the 

hearing officer, within a reasonable time set by the State as required under IDEA, consistent with 34 

C.F.R §§ 300.511through 300.514, 300.149, and 300.600. Pursuant to its general supervision authority

under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600, DEED, as the SEA, must ensure that the public agency

involved in the due process hearing implements the hearing officer’s decision in a timely manner, unless

either party appeals the decision.; and

4.5 The State’s policies and procedures related to State complaints do not address the award of a remedy for 

the denial of appropriate services, as required under 34 C.F.R. § 300.151(b). 

Required Actions

Policies and Procedures—within 90 days of the date of this monitoring report the State must submit to OSEP: 

1. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its mediation procedures to ensure that agreements

made as a result of mediation are formalized in a written mediation agreement;

2. A revised copy of its procedural safeguards, which includes the revision to the Notice of Request for

Due Process Hearing model form which clearly indicates that the phone number is either “optional” or

only required as available contact information in the case of a homeless child or youth or a student who

has reached the age of majority;

3. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its dispute resolution procedures and practices to

ensure that: (i) the State has a mechanism for tracking whether an LEA convenes a resolution meeting

within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due process complaint, unless the parties agree in
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 22 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution 

meeting as required, the State makes a finding of noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s 

noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year of the State’s 

identification of the noncompliance; 

4. Revised policies and procedures which demonstrate that the State has a mechanism to: (i) track the 

implementation of the due process hearing decisions; and (ii) monitor LEAs to ensure due process 

hearing decisions are implemented within the timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, or if there is 

no timeframe prescribed by the hearing officer, within a reasonable timeframe set by the State in 

accordance with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511 through 300.514, 300.149, and 300.600; and 

5. Documentation demonstrating that it has revised its State complaint procedures, policies, and practices 

to ensure that the State orders appropriate relief for a child with a disability who has been denied 

appropriate services, whether or not the child has moved to a different LEA within the State. 

Evidence of Implementation—as soon as possible, but no later than one year from the date of this monitoring 

report the State must submit to OSEP: 

1. Evidence of the State’s tracking mechanism and monitoring activities which ensure: 

a. LEAs convene a resolution meeting within 15 days of receiving notice of the parent’s due 

process complaint, unless the parties agree in writing to waive the meeting or to use mediation; 

and (ii) if an LEA fails to convene a resolution meeting as required, the State makes a finding of 

noncompliance and ensures that the LEA’s noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible, and 

in no case later than one year of the State’s identification of the noncompliance; and

b. Due process hearing decisions are being implemented in a timely manner. 

2. Evidence the State complaint investigators have been trained on the revised procedures and underlying 

IDEA requirements regarding children who have moved to a different LEA within the State. 

Recommendations 

1. Develop written guidelines and procedures that describe the process for receiving requests for the 

translation of procedural safeguards by LEAs; timelines for processing the request; and procedures for 

issuing the translated document to the LEA/parent, and responsible parties; 

2. Provide training and guidance to all LEAs regarding the provision of the procedural safeguards notice 

consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(c); and

3. Collaborate with the State’s PTI to ensure that parents understand their procedural safeguards, 

specifically their dispute resolution options and the differences between the options. 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 23 

STATE ADVISORY PANEL

STATE ADVISORY PANEL 

As part of the monitoring activity with Alaska, OSEP facilitated a virtual meeting with the Executive Director

of Alaska’s Governor’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education (GCDSE) which was given the 

responsibility for establishing a State Advisory Panel (SAP) in accordance with IDEA.

Legal Requirements

Under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.167-168, the State must establish and maintain an SAP for the purpose of providing 

policy guidance with respect to special education and related services for children with disabilities in the State. 

The advisory panel must consist of members appointed by the Governor, or any other official authorized under 

State law to make such appointments, be representative of the State population and be composed of individuals 

involved in, or concerned with the education of children with disabilities, including: (1) Parents of children with 

disabilities (ages birth through 26); (2) Individuals with disabilities; (3) Teachers; (4) Representatives of 

institutions of higher education that prepare special education and related services personnel; (5) State and local 

education officials, including officials who carry out activities under subtitle B of title VII of the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act, (42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.); (6) Administrators of programs for children with 

disabilities; (7) Representatives of other State agencies involved in the financing or delivery of related services 

to children with disabilities; (8) Representatives of private schools and public charter schools; (9) Not less than 

one representative of a vocational, community, or business organization concerned with the provision of 

transition services to children with disabilities; (10) A representative from the State child welfare agency 

responsible for foster care; and (11) Representatives from the State juvenile and adult corrections agencies. In 

addition, a majority of the members of the panel must be individuals with disabilities or parents of children with 

disabilities (ages birth through 26). 

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.169, the advisory panel must - (a) Advise the SEA of unmet needs within the State in the 

education of children with disabilities; (b) Comment publicly on any rules or regulations proposed by the State 

regarding the education of children with disabilities; (c) Advise the SEA in developing evaluations and 

reporting on data to the Secretary under section 618 of the Act; (d) Advise the SEA in developing corrective 

action plans to address findings identified in Federal monitoring reports under Part B of the Act; and (e) Advise 

the SEA in developing and implementing policies relating to the coordination of services for children with 

disabilities.

OSEP Analysis

In Alaska, GSCE serves as Alaska’s State Council on Developmental Disabilities in accordance with the 

Developmental Disabilities Act, Section 125 (42 U.S. Code § 15025) and was given the responsibility for 

establishing an SAP in accordance with IDEA. However, in a monitoring letter, the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services informed the GCSDE that this additional responsibility constitutes interference and 

noncompliance in accordance with the Developmental Disabilities Act, Section 124(c)(5)(L), February 16, 

2022.6

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provided another letter in response to a request from the 

GCSDE to clarify the finding and provide additional details on what led to the compliance findings. This letter, 

dated April 19, 2022, clarifies that Alaska’s State plan must solely include GCSDE information and activities, as 

6

 Letter to the GCSDE from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Community Living, February 16, 

2022.
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 24 

STATE ADVISORY PANEL

mandated by the Developmental Disabilities Act, and not responsibilities nor activities of the Developmental 

Disabilities Act which is not allowable.7 The Executive Director reported that because of this, an SAP does not 

currently exist. When OSEP asked DEED about the status of the SAP, the State Director confirmed that there is 

no SAP at this time and indicated that there has not been a functioning SAP for approximately three years. 

Therefore, the State has not maintained an advisory panel, nor does it have a mechanism in place to obtain 

advice or public comment on matters relating to special education and related services for children with 

disabilities in the State in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.167 through 300.169. 

Conclusion and Action Required

OSEP’s analysis is based on the documents and information provided by the State, and interviews with State

staff and other stakeholders. Based on this analysis, OSEP finds that: 

5.1 The State does not have a SAP as required by IDEA Sec. 612(a)(21) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.167 through 

300.169. 

Required Actions

1. Within 90 days of the date of this letter, the State must provide evidence of an established SAP that 

meets the requirements under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.167 through 300.169. 

7 Letter to the GCSDE from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Community Living, April 19, 

2022.
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 25 

SIGNIFICANT DISPROPORTIONALITY 

SIGNIFICANT DISPROPORTIONALITY 

As part of the monitoring activity, OSEP staff reviewed the State’s Significant Disproportionality Reporting 

Form submitted under Section V.B. of its FFY2020 Part B application and the State’s Section 618 Coordinated 

Early Intervening Services (CEIS) data. OSEP staff also reviewed information in the State’s Special Education 

Handbook and available data on the State’s: 1) identification of children with disabilities by racial and ethnic 

group; 2) identification of children with disabilities in specific disability categories by racial and ethnic group, 

3) placements of children with disabilities into particular educational settings by racial and ethnic group and 

data regarding the incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary removals from placement, including suspensions 

and expulsions. In addition, OSEP and DEED staff discussed the State’s procedures and implementation of the 

requirements related to significant disproportionality.

Legal Requirements 

States are required, under IDEA Section 618(d) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.646, to collect and examine data to 

determine whether significant disproportionality based on race and ethnicity is occurring in the State and LEAs 

of the State with respect to the identification of children as children with disabilities, including identification as 

children with particular impairments; the placement of children in particular educational settings; and the 

incidence, duration, and type of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions. Under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.647(b)(7), the State must report all risk ratio thresholds, minimum cell sizes, minimum n-sizes, 

and standards for measuring reasonable progress selected under paragraphs 34 C.F.R. § 300.647(b)(1)(i)(A) 

through (D), and the rationales for each, to the Department at a time and in a manner determined by the 

Secretary. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.173, the State must have in effect, consistent with the purposes of Part B of 

IDEA and with section 618(d) of the Act, policies and procedures designed to prevent the inappropriate 

overidentification or disproportionate representation by race and ethnicity of children as children with 

disabilities, including children with disabilities with a particular impairment described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.8. 

Except as provided in 34 C.F.R. § 300.647(d), the State must identify as having significant disproportionality 

based on race or ethnicity under 34 C.F.R. § 300.646(a) and (b) any LEA that has a risk ratio or alternate risk 

ratio for any racial or ethnic group in any of the categories described in paragraphs 34 C.F.R. 300.647(b)(3) and 

(4) that exceeds the risk ratio threshold set by the State for that category. 34 C.F.R. § 300.647(b)(6). Where 

significant disproportionality is occurring, the State must engage in a review, and, if appropriate, revision of 

policies, procedures, and practices used in the identification, placement, or discipline of a child with a disability 

to ensure that they comply with the requirements of IDEA; require the LEA to publicly report on the revision of 

policies, practices, and procedures; and require the LEA to reserve 15% of its IDEA Part B funds to provide 

comprehensive coordinated early intervening services (CCEIS) to identify and address the factors contributing 

to the significant disproportionality. 34 C.F.R. § 300.646(d). 

OSEP Analysis

During discussions with OSEP, DEED staff explained the State’s definition of significant disproportionality, 

including the information provided in the State’s FFY 2020 Part B grant application. DEED staff also explained 

its stakeholder engagement process and its procedures for making annual determinations of significant 

disproportionality, including its mechanism for reserving the IDEA Part B funds required for CCEIS. Finally, 

OSEP staff inquired about equity trends and issues occurring in the State. 

DEED staff discussed the State’s definition of significant disproportionality reported to OSEP in its FFY 2020 

Part B grant application. The State uses the presumptively reasonable cell size of 10 and n size of 30. The State 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 26 

SIGNIFICANT DISPROPORTIONALITY

set its risk ratio at 3.5. In its analysis the State used the most recent three data sets calculated annually and does 

use the reasonable progress flexibility. In each of the last three years, four LEAs in Alaska were required to use 

15% of funds for CCEIS due to significant disproportionality.8

DEED also discussed its stakeholder engagement activities and how those activities led to its definition of 

significant disproportionality. Specifically, DEED reported it revised its definition after reviewing the different 

scenarios with stakeholders. Upon review, the cell size, n size and risk ratio included in DEED’s definition of 

significant disproportionality is the same or within 0.5 of similarly situated States. In addition, based on 

stakeholder feedback, DEED decided to provide all LEAs with annual significant disproportionality data, 

regardless of whether the LEA was determined to have significant disproportionality. 

DEED also discussed its procedures for making annual determinations of significant disproportionality. After

the calculations are completed, DEED provides the data to its LEAs in March of each year with a report 

explaining any issues with their data. The State also uses a color-coded risk system based on the LEA’s risk

ratio. LEAs with risk ratios of 2.5 and higher are required to complete applicable sections of the “Success Gaps 

Tool Kit” and correct any noncompliance identified in the assessment. Intensive TA may also be provided upon 

request. If the LEA has a risk ratio of 3.5 or higher for less than three years, the LEA will complete additional 

sections of the tool kit to determine the root cause of the significant disproportionality and develop an action

plan. DEED also provides intensive TA to these districts. DEED reported that it uses mentor coaches to 

facilitate the root cause analysis for LEAs identified with significant disproportionality. The State explained that 

overidentification of native Alaskan children has been ongoing concern which has led to a finding of significant 

disproportionality based on cognitive impairment and speech delays for native Alaskan children in two districts. 

The State also described its process for ensuring that funds are reserved for CCEIS. Funds are reserved in its 

grant management system by State staff. Each LEA identified with significant disproportionality must also

submit a CCEIS plan to the State. The CCEIS plan includes a description of the LEA’s root cause analysis and 

the activities or intervening services the district will conduct. DEED provided evidence of its Annual 

Disproportionality Analysis and Report as well as its CCEIS plan template. While DEED was able to describe 

how it tracked expenditure of CCEIS funds through its grant reimbursement system, it was unclear whether 

there is ongoing monitoring of implementation of the LEAs’ CCEIS plans to ensure the CCEIS funds were used 

to address the factors contributing to the significant disproportionality. Finally, DEED described equity trends 

and issues occurring in the State and the steps it has taken to address the cultural norms of Alaska natives that 

may be impacting the significant disproportionality data. 

Conclusion and Recommendation 

While DEED described its system for identifying and addressing significant disproportionality, the State should 

consider the potential benefit of additional oversight over LEAs’ use of CCEIS funds. Specifically, OSEP 

recommends DEED:

1. Consider additional monitoring of the implementation of LEAs’ CCEIS plans to ensure the reserved 

funds are spent in a timely and appropriate manner and that LEAs use these funds to address the factors 

they identified which contribute to significant disproportionality.

8

 See: IDEA Section 618 Data Products: Static Tables Part B Maintenance of Effort Reduction Table 4 for School Years 2018-2019, 

2019-2020 and 2020-2021. 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 27 

APPENDIX 

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 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 SPP/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 State’s Performance Plan. 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. 

Data Legal Requirements

To meet the data reporting requirements of IDEA sections 616 and 618 and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.601(b) and 

300.640 through 300.646, the State must have a data system that is reasonably designed to collect and report 

valid and reliable data and information to the Department and the public in a timely manner and ensure that the 

data collected and reported reflects actual practice and performance. 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 28 

APPENDIX 

Fiscal Management Legal Requirements

Under the IDEA and the Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost 

Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), State educational agencies (SEAs) 

are responsible for oversight of the operations of IDEA-supported activities. Each SEA must monitor its own 

activities, and those of its local educational agencies (LEAs), to ensure compliance with applicable Federal 

requirements and that performance expectations are being achieved. Specifically, the SEA must ensure that 

every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes required information at the 

time of the subaward. 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(a). The SEA also must evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of 

noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of 

determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(b). The monitoring activities must 

ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and 

the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. 

2 C.F.R. § 200.332(d); also see 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600. In addition, the SEA must evaluate each 

subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the 

subaward, for the purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. 2 C.F.R. § 200.332(b). The 

SEA’s monitoring activities also must verify that every subrecipient is audited in accordance with the Uniform 

Guidance and must consider enforcement actions against noncompliant subrecipients as required under the 

Uniform Guidance and IDEA. 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.339 and 200.332(f) and (h); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149, 300.600, and 

300.604. Further, under 2 C.F.R. § 200.303, the SEA must establish effective internal controls that provide 

reasonable assurance of compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the 

Federal award, and the SEA must monitor its compliance with the requirements of the Federal award. 

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 

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 dispute 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.
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 29

APPENDIX 

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.

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.

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 § 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)–(2), 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 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 30

APPENDIX 

reached in the hearing; and a copy of the decision is mailed to the parties, unless, under 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 pursuant to 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.

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. 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.

Significant Disproportionality Legal Requirements

States are required, under 34 C.F.R. § 300.646, to collect and examine data to determine whether significant 

disproportionality based on race and ethnicity is occurring in the State and LEAs of the State with respect to the 

identification of children as children with disabilities, including identification as children with particular 

impairments; the placement of children in particular educational settings; and the incidence, duration, and type 

of disciplinary actions, including suspensions and expulsions. 

Where significant disproportionality is occurring, the State must engage in a review, and, if appropriate, 

revision of policies, procedures, and practices used in the identification, placement, or discipline of a child with 

a disability to ensure that they comply with the requirements of IDEA; require the LEA to publicly report on the 

revision of policies, practices, and procedures; and require the LEA to reserve 15% of its IDEA Part B funds to 

provide CCEIS to identify and address the factors contributing to the significant disproportionality.

Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.646(d), any LEA identified with significant disproportionality is required to reserve the 

maximum amount of funds to provide CCEIS to address factors contributing to the significant 

disproportionality. In addition, an LEA that is required to use 15 percent of its IDEA Part B allocation on 

CCEIS because the SEA identified the LEA as having significant disproportionality under 34 C.F.R. § 300.646 

will not be able to reduce local maintenance of effort (MOE) under sections 616(f) and 613(A)(2)(C) of the 

Act.

In determining whether significant disproportionality exists in a State or LEA the State must set a reasonable 

risk ratio threshold; reasonable minimum cell size; reasonable minimum n-size; and standard for measuring 

reasonable progress if a State uses the flexibility described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.647(d)(2).

34 C.F.R. § 300.647(b). These standards must be based on advice from stakeholders, including State Advisory 
OSEP DMS REPORT ALASKA | 2022 PAGE 31

APPENDIX 

Panels, as provided under section 612(a)(21)(D)(iii) of the Act; and are subject to monitoring and enforcement 

for reasonableness by the Secretary consistent with section 616 of the Act.

Except as provided in 34 C.F.R. § 300.647(d), the State must identify as having significant disproportionality 

based on race or ethnicity under 34 C.F.R. § 300.646(a) and (b) any LEA that has a risk ratio or alternate risk 

ratio for any racial or ethnic group in any of the categories described in paragraphs 34 C.F.R. 300.647(b)(3) and 

(4) that exceeds the risk ratio threshold set by the State for that category. 

The State must report all risk ratio thresholds, minimum cell sizes, minimum n-sizes, and standards for 

measuring reasonable progress selected under paragraphs 34 C.F.R. § 300.647(b)(1)(i)(A) through (D), and the 

rationales for each, to the Department at a time and in a manner determined by the Secretary. Rationales for 

minimum cell sizes and minimum n-sizes not presumptively reasonable under paragraph 

34 C.F.R. § 300.647(b)(1)(iv) must include a detailed explanation of why the numbers chosen are reasonable 

and how they ensure that the State is appropriately analyzing and identifying LEAs with significant disparities, 

based on race and ethnicity, in the identification, placement, or discipline of children with disabilities.

Finally, under 34 C.F.R. § 300.173, the State must have in effect, consistent with the purposes of Part B of 

IDEA and with section 618(d) of the Act, policies and procedures designed to prevent the inappropriate 

overidentification or disproportionate representation by race and ethnicity of children as children with 

disabilities, including children with disabilities with a particular impairment described in 34 C.F.R. § 300.8.