Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission 

COMPLIANCE

GENERAL SUPERVISION

FINDING: Based on the review of documents, analysis of data, and interviews with State personnel, OSEP concludes that the State does not have procedures and 

practices that are reasonably designed to enable the State to exercise general supervision over all educational programs for children with disabilities administered within 

the State, to ensure that all such programs meet the requirements of Part B of IDEA, and to effectively monitor the implementation of Part B of IDEA, as required by 20 

U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11) and 1416(a), 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149(a) and (b) and 300.600(a) and (b), 20 U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E), 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e) and 2 C.F.R. § 

200.332

1

1 This citation was modified to reflect changes in the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR § 200) dated November 12, 2020.

.

REQUIRED ACTIONS STATE DOCUMENTS 

SUBMITTED

OSEP ANALYSIS REQUIRED ACTIONS/ NEXT STEPS

Within 90 days of the date of this letter, consistent with the State’s general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities described above, VDOE must provide a written plan 

to OSEP that describes how it will ensure that all of its LEAs meet the requirements of Part B of IDEA. The State’s plan must include a description of the steps VDOE will 

take to ensure that:

1. The State establishes and will 

implement general supervision and 

monitoring procedures and practices 

that are reasonably designed to 

ensure that LEAs meet IDEA’s 

program requirements. The State’s 

procedures and practices must 

ensure that the State’s systems for 

review of LEA compliance data and 

other information are sufficiently 

comprehensive to identify 

noncompliance in a timely manner 

and ensure timely correction of any 

identified noncompliance consistent 

with the requirements in 20 U.S.C. § 

1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E) and 34 

C.F.R. § 300.600(e) and OSEP 

Memorandum 09-02 (OSEP Memo 

09-02), dated, October 15, 2008

September 18, 2020:

• Notification of and a 

copy of the updated 

monitoring procedures: 

Office of Special 

Education Program 

Improvement 

Compliance and 

Results-Driven 

Accountability Process 

and Procedural Manual.

• Revised changes in 

General Supervision 

monitoring (Virginia’s 

System of General 

Supervision of IDEA: 

Complying with State 

and Federal 

Requirements).

Based on the documentation and information 

provided by the State, OSEP cannot determine 

whether the State has a monitoring system that is 

reasonably designed to determine timely LEA 

compliance with IDEA Part B requirements.

The State had to submit a plan describing the 

steps it would take to ensure that the State 

established and implements general supervision 

and monitoring procedures and practices 

reasonably designed to ensure that LEAs meet 

IDEA’s program requirements and ensure that LEA 

compliance data are sufficiently comprehensive to 

identify and correct noncompliance in a timely 

manner.

During a January 15, 2021, conference call the 

State informed OSEP that its general supervision 

and monitoring practices had been undergoing 

revisions and improvement over the last year. 

On or before March 10, 2022, the State 

must submit to OSEP procedures that 

demonstrate the State has a system 

reasonably designed to ensure timely LEA 

compliance with IDEA requirements. The 

State must update their policies, 

procedures, and practices, and if still 

applicable, needs to address the following 

or similar factors that go to reasonableness

of the nature and scope of the State’s 

review:

For compliance monitoring: 

Q1. Regarding the “comprehensive in-depth 

review” of certain LEAs, how many LEAs 

will receive a “comprehensive in-depth 

review” annually?

Q2. How is a comprehensive in-depth 

review conducted? 

Q3. Which records are reviewed during 
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

March 4, 2021

• Copy of the supporting 

documents utilized to 

carry out the cyclical 

review of school 

districts’ implementation 

of the IDEA in 

accordance with the 

provisions at 34 CFR 

300.604(a)(1), and 

(a)(3), (b)(2)(i) and 

(b)(2)(v), and (c)(2) and 

the Regulations 

Governing Special 

Education Programs for 

Children with 

Disabilities in Virginia, 8 

VAC 20-80.

• Core Special Education 

Assessment – Narrative

• Core Special Education 

Assessment - Student 

Record Review

During the call OSEP asked several questions 

related to the reasonableness of the State’s 

monitoring system, such as:

Q1: Regarding the “comprehensive in-depth 

review” of certain LEAs, how many LEAs will 

receive a “comprehensive in-depth review” 

annually?

Q2. How is a comprehensive in-depth review 

conducted? 

Q3. Which records are reviewed during 

“comprehensive in-depth reviews”?

Q4. How many LEAs will receive a “targeted or 

focused” review annually?

Q5. What criteria are used to determine when a 

targeted or focused review takes place?

Some of the documentation submitted by the State

subsequently included policies and procedures that 

were in effect prior to OSEP’s finding of 

noncompliance and had not yet been revised

(Virginia's System of General Supervision of IDEA, 

2019). Additionally, information contained in the

State’s updated Office of Special Education 

Program Improvement Compliance and ResultsDriven Accountability Process and Procedural 

Manual, did not contain sufficient detail to enable

OSEP to determine reasonableness, including the

questions raised by OSEP during the January 

conference call.

“comprehensive in-depth reviews”?

Q4. How many LEAs will receive a “targeted 

or focused” review annually?

Q5. What criteria are used to determine 

when a targeted or focused review takes 

place?

2. Specifically, the State must revise its 

general supervision and monitoring 

system to include procedures and 

practices that are reasonably designed, 

as appropriate, to consider and address 

September 18, 2020:

• Notification of and a 

copy of the updated 

monitoring procedures: 

Office of Special 

Based on the documentation and information 

provided, OSEP cannot determine whether the 

State has a monitoring system that is reasonably 

designed to consider and address credible 

allegations of LEA noncompliance in a timely 

manner.

On or before March 10, 2022, the State 

must provide information to OSEP that 

shows that the State’s practices and 

procedures are reasonably designed to 

address credible allegations of 

noncompliance, such as complaints from 
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

credible allegations of LEA 

noncompliance in a timely manner.

Education Program 

Improvement 

Compliance and 

Results-Driven 

Accountability Process 

and Procedural Manual.

• Revised changes in 

General Supervision 

monitoring (Virginia’s 

System of General 

Supervision of IDEA: 

Complying with State and 

Federal Requirements).

March 4, 2021

• VDOE Process and 

Procedure Manual

The documentation submitted by the State

includes the Virginia’s System of General 

Supervision of IDEA: Complying with State and 

Federal Requirements, which was last updated in 

2019 and the updated Office of Special Education 

Program Improvement Compliance and ResultsDriven Accountability Process and Procedural 

Manual. The documents submitted provide a broad 

overview of how complaints, including complaints 

from parents and those from media outlets will be 

handled. The VDOE Process and Procedure 

Manual states: “For all other concerns and 

complaints [other than formal complaints], the 

SEPI office will be notified and make 

determinations as to the next steps, which may 

include an on-site monitoring visit,

desk audit, or a requirement that the LEA creates a 

corrective action plan (CAP); and

conclude with our strategic follow-up activities to 

ensure continued compliance such

as letters of finding of noncompliance and Prong 1 

and Prong 2 actions.” The guidance does not 

describe a timeline for any action or response and 

does not provide guidelines for when a desk audit 

or CAP would be required. It is not clear for those 

making the complaints or LEAs receiving the 

complaints, what immediate next steps are taken

after complaints are made. 

During a telephone conference between OSEP 

and the State on January 15, 2021, the State 

indicated it would provide OSEP with a copy of its

Special Education and Student Services (SESS) 

division-wide communications network 

procedures/policies. The State explained that 

parents, in a timely manner. Documentation 

to be submitted should include the Special 

Education and Student Services (SESS) 

division-wide communications network, and 

documentation showing, at a minimum,

examples of how other concerns and 

complaints have been handled under the 

revised procedures (those allegations that 

resulted in a CAP, in an audit, and in an onsite visit), and the results of those actions. 
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

these policies were designed to identify the State’s

process for describing responsibilities for 

communicating with parents regarding some 

complaints raised by parents and other 

stakeholders. During the same call, OSEP also 

asked the State what factors or considerations 

would require a specific course of action, such as 

an investigation, CAP, or desk audit following a 

complaint, and whether the State had a guide or 

other document that outlined the process for 

handling complaints. Subsequent documentation 

submitted by the State did not contain information 

regarding any specific factors or considerations the 

State would weigh when determining the 

appropriate action to take following the submission

of a complaint by parents or other stakeholders or

provide examples of how differing allegations are 

processed.

3. The State must provide a copy of the 

notification to be issued to all LEAs, 

parent advocacy groups and other 

interested parties advising them that 

the State has revised its policies, 

procedures, and practices for general 

supervision and monitoring to be 

consistent with the required actions 

described above.

October 29, 2020

• Superintendent’s Memo 

posted on VDOE 

website dated 

September 21, 2020.

Based on the documentation and information

provided, OSEP cannot determine whether the 

State has notified all LEAs, parent advocacy 

groups, and other interested parties about its 

revised policies, procedures, and practices for 

general supervision and monitoring.

The State had to provide notice to all LEAs, parent 

advocacy groups and other interested parties 

advising them that the State has revised its 

policies, procedures, and practices for general 

supervision and monitoring.

In response to this required action the State 

submitted a “Superintendent’s Memo”. The memo 

describes possible changes the State may make 

but did not describe any changes that had already 

been made and/or implemented. 

On or before March 10, 2022, the State 

must issue a notification to all LEAs, parent 

advocacy groups and other interested 

parties advising them of all the revisions that 

the State has made to its policies, 

procedures, and practices for general 

supervision and monitoring. The State must 

also provide OSEP with proper 

documentation, such as a copy of, or link to,

the notification used to satisfy this required 

action.
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

No other document was submitted to demonstrate 

the required notice. The memo is an internal

memo, in that only LEAs have access to it. No 

documentation was submitted to show that LEAs 

provided notification to parents or parent advocacy 

groups. Therefore, this submission, (i.e., the

memo) does not satisfy the requirement to provide 

notice to parent advocacy groups or other 

interested parties. It does not appear that the State 

has taken any additional actions. Further, since the 

memo only describes possible changes, it is 

unclear which revisions to policies procedures/ 

practices, if any, have been made or implemented 

and notice of such has been provided.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

STATE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES

FINDING: Based on the review of documents, analysis of data, and interviews with State personnel, OSEP concludes that the State is not exercising its general 

supervisory and monitoring responsibilities to implement its state complaint resolution system in a manner consistent with all the requirements in 20 U.S.C. § 

1412(a)(11)(A) and 1416(a) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149 and 300.600 and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 through 300.153 for the following reason:

The State does not ensure that it resolves every complaint that meets the requirements of 34 C.F.R. § 300.153 in accordance with the minimum State complaint 

procedures in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152, specifically in the situation where the State has developed a communication plan with an individual parent-complainant.

REQUIRED ACTIONS STATE SUBMITTED 

DOCUMENTS

OSEP ANALYSIS REQUIRED ACTIONS/ NEXT STEPS

Within 90 days of the date of this letter,

1. The State must submit to OSEP 

documentation demonstrating that the 

State has established and will 

implement procedures and practices to 

ensure that the State resolves every 

complaint that meets the requirements 

in 34 C.F.R. § 300.153 in accordance 

with the minimum State complaint 

procedures in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152, 

even in a circumstance where the State 

September 18, 2020:

• The Office of Dispute 

Resolution (ODRAS) 

Due Process 

Requirements (Revised 

March 2020)

• Revised Complaint 

Resolution Procedures

Based on the documentation submitted, OSEP 

cannot determine whether the State has 

established procedures and practices to ensure the 

State resolves every complaint in accordance with 

the minimum State complaint procedures. 

The State had to submit documentation 

demonstrating that the State had established and 

implemented procedures and practices to ensure 

the State resolves every complaint in accordance 

On or before March 10, 2022, the State 

must provide OSEP with documentation that 

the State has established, circulated, and 

implemented procedures and practices to 

ensure the State resolves every Complaint 

that meets the requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 

300.153 in accordance with the minimum 

State complaint procedures in 34 C.F.R. § 

300.152, even in a circumstance where the 
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

develops a communication plan with an 

individual complainant.

Document (Revised 

February 2012)

October 29, 2020

• Superintendent’s Memo 

posted on VDOE 

website dated 

September 21, 2020.

• Supplemental internal 

procedure 

memorandum (parent 

subject to a 

communication plan) 

(Draft dated 9/21/2020; 

no confirmation of 

dissemination to staff)

with the minimum complaint procedures in 34 

C.F.R. § 300.152.

The documents submitted by the State have either 

not been updated to address the outstanding 

noncompliance, or in the case of “Supplemental 

internal procedure memorandum” are in draft form, 

with no indication of final approval, dissemination 

to staff, or implementation.

During a conference call with the State on January 

15, 2021, the State indicated to OSEP of 

forthcoming updated State complaint procedures,

but these have not yet been submitted. 

State develops a communication plan with 

an individual complainant; and

To the extent that the State has finalized, 

circulated, and implemented the 

Supplemental Internal Procedure 

Memorandum, it also must provide OSEP 

with documentation showing, at a minimum, 

showing, examples of how incoming 

communications were handled and the 

results of these actions.

DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT AND HEARING PROCEDURES

FINDINGS: 

1. The State is not exercising its general supervisory and monitoring responsibilities in accordance with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11)(A) and 1416(a) and 20 U.S.C. § 

1232d(b)(3)(A) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149(a) and (b) and 300.600(a) and (d)(2) with regard to the following:

a. VDOE does not ensure and document that LEAs track the implementation of the timelines for the resolution process for due process complaints filed by parents in 34 

C.F.R. § 300.510 and for calculating the beginning and expiration of the 45-day due process hearing decision timeline in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), unless under 34 C.F.R. 

§ 300.515(c), a hearing officer grants a specific extension of the 45-day timeline at the request of a party to the hearing; and

b. VDOE does not ensure that its LEAs track the implementation of the resolution timelines in 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(3) and that hearing officers track the implementation 

of the expedited due process hearing timelines in 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2) in order to properly track due process hearing decision timelines.

2. Consequently, OSEP concludes that the State does not have procedures and practices that are reasonably designed to ensure a timely resolution process for due 

process complaints filed by parents or the timely adjudication of due process complaints that result in due process hearings, or a timely resolution process for expedited 

due process complaints, and the timely adjudication of expedited due process hearings.

3. Because the State does not have a mechanism to reliably determine the date on which the 45-day due process hearing timeline in 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) commences, 

the State is unable to report valid and reliable data on the adjudication of due process complaints as required under Section 618(a)(1)(F) of IDEA.

4. Because the State does not have a mechanism for reliably determining whether expedited hearing timelines are met, the State is unable to report valid and reliable 

data on expedited due process hearings in accordance with Section 618(a) of IDEA.

REQUIRED ACTIONS STATE SUBMITTED OSEP ANALYSIS REQUIRED ACTIONS/ NEXT STEPS
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

DOCUMENTS

Within 90 days of the date of this letter, the State must: Submit documentation demonstrating that the State has revised its dispute resolution procedures and practices 

and is implementing those revisions, to ensure that:

1.a. The State has a mechanism for 

tracking the timelines for the resolution 

process required under 34 C.F.R. § 

300.510 to determine when: resolution 

meetings occur; the 30-day resolution 

period or the adjusted resolution period 

has concluded; and the 45-day hearing 

timeline commences.

September 18, 2020

• State Tracking Log 

(paper/electronic)

• Sample/form closure 

report for hearing 

officers to be attached 

to VDOE’s guidance 

document for hearing 

officers.

• Pre-Hearing document 

(sample)

• Managing the Timeline 

in Due Process 

Hearings: A Guidance 

Document for Special 

Education Hearing 

Officers Report or Order

March 4, 2021

• VDOE submitted draft 

updated language for 

the “Navigating the 

Maze” guidance 

document. 

Based on the documentation and information

provided, OSEP cannot determine whether the 

State has a mechanism to track the timelines for 

the IDEA resolution process. 

The State had to submit documentation 

demonstrating that the State had revised its 

dispute resolution procedures and practices to

ensure that the State has a mechanism for tracking 

the timelines for the IDEA resolution process. This 

includes tracking when resolution meetings occur, 

when the 30-day or adjusted resolution period 

concludes, and when the 45-day hearing timeline 

commences.

OSEP and the State had a conference call on 

January 15, 2021, to discuss the required actions. 

During that call OSEP raised several questions 

and asked for specific documentation. OSEP 

asked for a log or other proof that Hearing Officers 

had been provided training on the IDEA resolution 

process timelines. The State informed OSEP that it 

kept hearing tracking logs and case closure 

summaries and/or reports. OSEP asked for the 

most recent copies of those documents. 

The State submitted draft documents in support of 

its efforts. It is not clear to OSEP whether the draft 

documents have been finalized and issued. The 

draft documents do not explain how the State will 

ensure and document that LEAs track the 

On or before March 10,2022, the State must 

provide OSEP with additional information to 

determine compliance. This information 

should include updated and finalized 

guidance documents (Navigating the Maze) 

and more detailed information about its 

most recent hearings, including:

• A copy of the most recent hearing 

tracking log. 

• Copies of Case Closure 

Summary/Reports for all hearings held 

between September 1, 2020 (date), and 

December 31, 2021 (date).

• Any information related to how the State 

provides notice to, and addresses 

hearing officers’ apparent 

noncompliance with the referenced 

timeline.
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

resolution process timelines, including the 30-day 

resolution period or any adjusted resolution period.

On a May 25, 2021, call between OSEP and

VDOE, the State advised it was currently reviewing 

proposals for a system to provide real time 

tracking. OSEP was not provided with a copy of 

the RFP.

1.b. The State has a mechanism for 

tracking the timelines for resolution 

meetings and the resolution period for 

expedited due process complaints in 34 

C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(3) and for 

determining whether expedited due 

process hearings and determinations in 

those hearings occur within the 

timelines required in 34 C.F.R. § 

300.532(c)(2).

The documents submitted 

for the required actions are 

the same as above in 1. a.

Based on the documentation and information

provided, OSEP cannot determine whether the 

State has a mechanism for tracking the timelines 

for the resolution process for expedited due 

process complaints. 

The State had to submit documentation 

demonstrating that the State had revised its 

dispute resolution procedures and practices and 

had implementing those revisions, to ensure that 

the State had a mechanism in place for tracking 

timelines for resolution meetings and the resolution 

period for expedited due process complaints. In 

addition to the analysis for Item 1.a, incorporated 

herein by reference, OSEP did not receive any 

additional information demonstrating that the State 

has a mechanism for determining whether 

expedited due process hearings and 

determinations in those hearings occur within the 

timelines required in 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2).

OSEP and the State had a conference call on 

January 15, 2021, to discuss the required actions. 

During that call OSEP raised several questions 

and asked for specific documentation. OSEP 

asked for a log or other proof that Hearing Officers 

had been provided training on the IDEA resolution 

process timelines. The State informed OSEP that it 

On or before March 10, 2022, the State 

must provide additional documentation to 

show that it has a mechanism in place for 

tracking the timelines for resolution 

meetings and the resolution period for 

expedited due process complaints and for 

determining whether the expedited due 

process hearings and determinations are 

occurring within the timelines required under 

IDEA (34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2)).

This additional documentation should 

include updated and finalized guidance 

documents regarding expedited due 

process complaints and more detailed 

information about its most recent hearings, 

including:

1. A copy of the most recent hearing 

tracking log. 

2. Copies of Case Closure 

Summary/Reports for all hearings 

held between September 1, 2020, 

and December 31, 2021.

3. Any records addressing any 

Hearing Officer’s failure to comply 

with VDOE guidance or IDEA (if 
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

kept hearing tracking logs and case closure 

summaries and/or reports. OSEP asked for the 

most recent copies of those documents. 

The State submitted documents in draft form. It is 

not clear to OSEP whether the draft documents 

have been finalized and issued. The draft 

documents do not explain how the State will 

ensure and document that LEAs track the 

resolution process timelines for expedited due 

process complaints.

On a May 25, 2021, call between OSEP and

VDOE, the State advised it was currently reviewing 

proposals for a system to provide real time tracking 

(RFP mention in previous discussion). OSEP was 

not provided with a copy of the RFP.

Additionally, from September 1, 2020, to 

December 17, 2021, OSEP has received 

complaints alleging that Hearing Officers have not 

adhered to hearing timelines required in 34 C.F.R. 

§§ 300.515(a) for a due process hearing, 

specifically allowable extensions for issuing 

decisions. These communications indicate there 

may still be confusion around the issue of hearing 

timelines that has not been resolved.

applicable).

1.c. Hearing officers are receiving 

appropriate training allowing them to 

apply and track the resolution period 

timelines for all due process hearings.

No documents were 

submitted relating to 

Hearing Officer training on 

tracking timelines for due 

process hearings and 

resolution periods. 

Because the State did not submit any 

documentation specific to the training of Hearing 

Officer with respect to training on tracking the 

resolution period timelines for all due process 

hearings, the State has not provided enough 

information to satisfy this corrective action.

On or before March 10, 2022, submit to 

OSEP documentation showing that Hearing 

Officers in the State have received 

adequate training on the IDEA resolution 

period timelines and how to track them. 

This could include a training log showing

training relevant to IDEA resolution period 

timelines in which Hearing Officers have 

participated, or similar documentation. 
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

2. Submit documentation demonstrating 

that the State has reviewed its due 

process hearing data collection 

processes and revised them, as 

necessary, to ensure that, consistent 

with the information set forth above, it 

will be able to provide accurate data on 

fully adjudicated hearings and hearing 

decisions with allowable extensions for 

the IDEA Section 618 dispute resolution 

data submission for due process 

hearings conducted pursuant to 34 

C.F.R. §§ 300.511–300.515 and for 

expedited due process hearings 

conducted pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 

300.532 for the School Year 2020–

2021 data collection. The reporting year 

for this data collection is July 1, 2020,

through June 30, 2021.

September 18, 2020

• State Tracking Log 

(paper/electronic)

• Sample/form closure 

report for hearing 

officers to be attached 

to VDOE’s guidance 

document for hearing 

officers.

• Pre-Hearing document 

(sample)

• Managing the Timeline 

in Due 

Process Hearings: A 

Guidance Document for 

Special Education 

Hearing Officers Report 

or Order

March 4, 2021

▪ VDOE submitted draft 

updated language for 

the “Navigating the 

Maze” guidance 

document

Based on the documentation provided, cannot

determine whether the State’s hearing data 

collection processes allow the State to provide 

accurate data on fully adjudicated hearings and 

hearing decisions with allowable extensions for 

IDEA Section 618 dispute resolution data 

submission. 

The State had to submit documentation 

demonstrating that the State had reviewed its due 

process hearing data collection processes and 

revised them to ensure that it would be able to 

provide accurate data on fully adjudicated hearing 

and hearing decisions with allowable extensions 

for IDEA Section 618 dispute resolution data. 

The documents submitted do not demonstrate that 

the State has documentation demonstrating the 

State’s revised due process hearing data collection 

processes. The forms submitted were sample 

forms and did not contain data. During a 

conference call with the State on January 15, 

2021, the State indicated that it had and would 

submit to OSEP copies of hearing tracking logs 

and Case Closure Summary/Reports which would 

track the resolution period timelines for each 

hearing. However, the State informed OSEP that 

the State does not have a process in place to 

actively manage hearing timelines. The State 

captures information regarding hearing timelines 

from case closure reports after completion (with or 

without extensions) but does not have a 

mechanism to determine when a decision 

becomes overdue or mechanism to verify the 

accuracy of the data. The State did not explain to 

On or before March 10, 2022, the State 

must submit documentation of whether, and 

how, the State addresses instances where a 

hearing officer granted one or more 

extensions of the hearing timelines for 

improper reasons. 

In addition, the State must submit

supporting documentation, beyond what has 

already been submitted under required 

actions 1.a., 1.b, and 1.c for this section,

demonstrating that the State will be able to 

provide accurate data on fully adjudicated 

hearings and hearing decisions with 

allowable extensions for the IDEA Section 

618 dispute resolution data submission.
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

OSEP what actions, if any, it takes when a hearing 

officer grants an extension for improper reasons. It 

is not clear to OSEP how the State plans to 

provide accurate data on fully adjudicated hearing 

and hearing decision with allowable extensions 

under IDEA Section 618 dispute resolution data. 

3. Submit a copy of the notification to 

be issued to all hearing officers, LEAs, 

parent advocacy groups, and other 

interested parties advising them that 

the State has revised and is 

implementing procedures for tracking 

the timeliness of the resolution process 

and fully adjudicated due process 

hearing decisions to be consistent with 

the required actions described above.

No documentation was 

submitted for this required 

action.

There is no evidence the required notification has 

been issued as outlined in the Required Actions. 

The State had to submit a copy of the notification it 

issued to all hearing officers, LEAs, parents, and 

advocacy groups advising them that the State had 

revised and is implementing procedures for 

tracking the timeliness of the IDEA resolution 

process.

On or before March 10, 2022, the State 

must submit a copy of the notification to be 

issued to all hearing officers, LEAs, parent 

advocacy groups, and other interested 

parties advising them that the State has 

revised and is implementing procedures for 

tracking the timeliness of the resolution 

process and fully adjudicated due process 

hearing decisions to be consistent with the 

required actions described above.

MEDIATION

Based on the review of documents and interviews with State personnel, OSEP concludes that the State does not have procedures and practices that are reasonably designed to implement a 

mediation process that is consistent with the requirements of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.506. Specifically, the State’s practice of having its mediation coordinator co-mediate 

when the mediator is new, and permitting its mediation coordinator to be present at the mediation sessions is inconsistent with the requirement in 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(c)(1) that the State’s 

procedures ensure that a mediator is not an employee of the SEA and has no personal or professional interest that would conflict with the mediator’s objectivity

REQUIRED ACTIONS STATE SUBMITTED 

DOCUMENTS

OSEP ANALYSIS REQUIRED ACTIONS/ NEXT STEPS

Within 90 days of the date of this letter, the State must provide:

1. Documentation demonstrating that 

the State has established revised 

procedures and practices, and is 

implementing those revisions, to ensure 

that the State’s mediation coordinator, 

an employee of the SEA, does not comediate and is not present during 

mediation sessions.

September 18, 2020

▪ VDOE’s Frequently 

Asked Questions (FAQ) 

re: Virginia Special 

Education Mediation 

Services 

Documentation 

Mentoring Program for 

New Mediators

Based on information and documents provided by 

the State, OSEP cannot determine whether the 

State has provided documentation demonstrating 

that the State has established and implemented 

revised procedures and practices to ensure that 

the State’s mediation coordinator does not comediate sessions.

The State had to provide documentation to OSEP 

demonstrating that the State had established and 

implemented revised procedures and practices to 

To the extent that Virginia intends to 

continue evaluation procedures that rely 

primarily on the presence of an SEA 

employee in the mediation sessions, on or 

before March 10, 2022, the State must 

provide OSEP with additional information to 

determine compliance. This includes 

creating mediation evaluation procedures 

which must be consistent with the 

requirements of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e) and 34 
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

March 4, 2021

▪ VDOE request to OSEP 

regarding allowing SEA 

employees to observe 

mediators

ensure that the State’s mediation coordinator did 

not co-mediate mediation sessions.

The State has not provided any indication it will 

modify its practice regarding the mediation 

evaluator. The State has indicated the SEA 

employee will serve as an observer to evaluate 

mediators. However, OSEP has information that 

indicates that the mediation evaluator (an SEA 

employee) serves as the mediator or co-mediator, 

not only as an observer. The State has not 

provided any documentation or notification that this 

practice will cease. 

As outlined in the DMS letter, 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 may not have a personal or 

professional interest that conflicts with the person’s 

objectivity. OSEP remains concerned that the 

presence of an SEA employee affects the 

objectivity and professional interests of the 

mediator of record, even when the SEA employee 

is only observing. OSEP also has concerns related 

to information that the SEA employee may have 

taken an active role in guiding the mediation itself, 

which is prohibited under the IDEA.

Since the State has not provided any further 

information or taken any further action regarding its 

mediation evaluator practice, OSEP cannot 

determine whether the State has established and 

implemented revised procedures and practices to 

ensure that the State’s mediation coordinator does 

not co-mediate sessions.

C.F.R. § 300.506. and at a minimum must 

include:

• A requirement that mediation is 

conducted by only one individual.

• A requirement that the mediation 

evaluator is only present at the 

hearing in an observatory role. No 

participation in the session is 

permitted.

• The frequency and duration of 

mediation evaluations.

• Prior written notice to parents 

participating in mediation sessions 

where a mediation evaluator will 

attend, stating that: mediation is 

voluntary and parents may refuse to 

participate in mediation if they do not 

want the mediation evaluator to be 

present; the evaluator is an 

employee of the SEA; the evaluator 

will be present only to observe; and, 

the evaluator is prohibited from 

participating in the mediation.

• Parent exit surveys or other 

documentation demonstrating that 

the mediation evaluator was only 

present at the mediation sessions in 

an observatory role and did not 

participate.
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

2. A copy of the notification to be issued 

to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, 

and other interested parties advising 

them that the State has implemented 

revised procedures and practices that 

prohibit the attendance of any 

employee of VDOE at a mediation 

session.

1.

No documentation for this 

required action was 

submitted.

Because no documentation was submitted, OSEP 

cannot determine whether the State issued a 

notification to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, 

and other interested parties advising them that the 

State has implemented revised procedures and 

practices that prohibit the attendance of any 

employee of VDOE at a mediation session.

On or before March 10, 2022, provide 

OSEP with a copy of the notification to all 

LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other 

interested parties advising them that the 

State has implemented revised procedures 

and practices that prohibit the attendance of 

any employee of VDOE at a mediation 

session.

INDIVIDUAL EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS

Based on a review of documents and interviews with State personnel, for the reasons set forth above, OSEP concludes that the provision of Virginia’s regulation, 8VAC20-81-170(B)(2)(a) 

and (e), are inconsistent with 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.502, because the State’s regulation restricts a parent’s right to an IEE at public expense to only those areas in 

which the public agency had previously evaluated the child. 

REQUIRED ACTIONS STATE SUBMITTED 

DOCUMENTS

OSEP ANALYSIS REQUIRED ACTIONS/ NEXT STEPS

Within 90 days of the date of this letter, the State must:

1. Submit a written assurance to OSEP 

specifying that as soon as possible but 

in no case later than one year from the 

date of this report, in accordance with 

20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 

300.502, the State will revise Virginia 

Administrative Code 8VAC20-81-

170(B)(2)(a) and (e) to, at a minimum, 

remove the word “component” following 

the word “evaluation.”

September 18, 2020

• Written Assurance

October 29, 2020

• Superintendent’s 

Memorandum dated 

September 21, 2020, 

issued via web posting

• Dissemination 

information for parent 

advocacy groups

(Superintendent’s Sept. 

21, 2020, Memo)

Based on the documentation and information 

provided, OSEP has determined the State has 

complied with required action 1 for this section.

The State had to submit a written assurance to 

OSEP specifying that as soon as possible the 

State would revise Virginia Administrative Code 

8VAC20-81- 170(B)(2)(a) and (e) to, at a minimum, 

remove the word “component” following the word 

“evaluation.”

No further actions are required for this item.
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

2. Submit to OSEP a copy of a 

memorandum that the State has issued 

to all LEAs, parent advocacy groups, 

and other interested parties instructing 

LEAs to comply with 20 U.S.C. 

1415(b)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b) 

by also providing an IEE at public 

expense in areas where the LEA 

previously has not conducted its own 

evaluation, unless the LEA has 

demonstrated, through a due process 

hearing decision, that its evaluation is 

appropriate; and advising that the State 

will be revising Virginia Administrative 

Code 8VAC20-81-170(B)(2)(a) and (e), 

to, at a minimum, remove the word 

“component” following the word 

“evaluation” in accordance with 20 

U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 

300.502(b).

The documents submitted 

for the required actions are 

the same as above in 

required action 1.

Based on the documentation and information 

provided, OSEP has determined that the State has 

not complied with required action 2 for this section.

The State had to submit to OSEP a copy of a 

memorandum that the State has issued to all 

LEAs, parent advocacy groups, and other 

interested parties instructing LEAs to comply with 

20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b) 

by also providing an IEE at public expense in areas 

where the LEA previously has not conducted its 

own evaluation, unless the LEA has demonstrated, 

through a due process hearing decision, that its 

evaluation is appropriate; and advising that the 

State will be revising Virginia Administrative Code 

8VAC20-81-170(B)(2)(a) and (e), to, at a minimum, 

remove the word “component” following the word 

“evaluation”

The Memorandum submitted did not ensure 

compliance with the required action because the 

memorandum only relayed the language of the 

statute and regulation found at 20 U.S.C. 

1415(b)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)]”. The 

memorandum did not mention the specific issue or 

practice of an LEA not granting IEEs in areas 

where the LEA had not previously conducted their 

own evaluations. 

OSEP has made VDOE aware of several instances 

of continued non-compliance with IEE 

requirements after Sept 21, 2020. While VDOE 

has taken steps to address each instance brought 

to its attention by OSEP, the continued 

noncompliance by LEA(s) raises concerns of 

On or before March 10, 2022, the State 

must issue a memorandum to LEAs that 

addresses the specific practice of LEAs not 

providing IEEs at public expense in areas 

where the LEA has not conducted its own 

evaluation and instruct LEAs to comply with 

20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 

300.502(b).
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

whether VDOE has adequality notified LEAs of the 

specific issue.

The State submitted additional documents on 

March 4, 2021, in response to the follow-up 

meeting. Upon review of the updated submission, it 

does not appear that any additional action has 

taken place. 

Because the State has not yet instructed all LEAs 

to correct the specific issue of not providing IEEs in 

areas where an LEA has not yet conducted an 

evaluation, OSEP has determined that the State 

has not satisfied this corrective action.

3. Upon completion of the changes to 

the Administrative Code, submit to 

OSEP documentation of the revisions.

December 21, 2021

▪ Copy of the September 

16, 2021, Town Hall

advising of the pending 

change to the 

regulation. 

▪ Copy of the 

Superintendents Memo 

dated December 17, 

2021, advising of the 

completed change to 

the VA regulation 

regarding IEE removing 

the word “component”. 

Based on the documentation and information 

provided, OSEP has determined the State has 

complied with required action 3 for this section.

The state has finalized changes to its regulations 

found at Virginia Administrative Code 8VAC20-81-

170(B)(2)(a) and (e).

https://law.lis.virginia.gov/admincode/title8/agency2

0/chapter81/section170/

No further actions are required for this item.

4. Review and revise its policies, 

procedures, and practices regarding the 

IEE process, and require its LEAs to 

conduct a similar review of their 

policies, procedures, and practices, to 

ensure that pending revision of Virginia 

The documents submitted 

for the required actions are 

the same as above in 

required actions 1 and 3.

Based on the information and documentation 

submitted, this required action has not been 

satisfied. 

The State had to review and revise its policies, 

procedures, and practices regarding the IEE 

On or before March 10, 2022, the State 

must provide OSEP with additional 

documentation/information to determine 

compliance. This includes: 

1. Review and revise the State’s policies, 
Enclosure 

OSEP’s Response to the Virginia Department of Education’s Differentiated Monitoring System Document Submission

Administrative Code 8VAC20-81-

170(B)(2)(a) and (e):

A. VDOE and its LEAs do not limit a 

parent’s right to obtain an IEE at 

public expense to the areas of 

assessment or evaluation 

components that were previously 

conducted by the public agency; 

and 

B. In a circumstance where a 

parent requests an IEE at public 

expense of their child in an area 

not previously assessed by the 

public agency, the public agency 

must, without unnecessary 

delay, either: 

i. Initiates a hearing under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.507 to 

show that its evaluation is 

appropriate; or 

the public agency must ensure that an 

IEE is provided at public expense, 

unless the agency demonstrates in a 

hearing under 34 C.F.R. § 300.507 that 

the evaluation obtained by the parent 

did not meet agency criteria.

process. The State was also directed to require 

LEAs to conduct a similar review of their IEE 

policies and procedures to ensure that LEAs do not 

limit a parent’s right to obtain an IEE at public 

expense in areas that were previously evaluated. 

Updated LEA policies must also address the 

requirement that the public agency must, without 

unnecessary delay either, initiation a hearing to 

show its evaluation is appropriate or ensure the 

IEE is provided at public expense when a parent 

requests an IEE of their child in an area not 

previously assessed.

No evidence was submitted to show a review and 

revision to the State’s policies, procedures, and 

practices regarding the IEE process. The memo 

submitted discusses the IDEA regulatory 

requirements related to an IEE request as stated in 

34 CFR § 300.502(b)(2) but does not contain 

discussion of any review or revisions to the State’s 

or LEAs’ IEE policies, procedures, and practices.

procedures, and practices regarding the 

IEE process, to ensure compliance with 

the revision of Virginia Administrative 

Code 8VAC20-81-170(B)(2)(a) and (e), 

and ensure VDOE and its LEAs do not 

limit a parent’s right to obtain an IEE at 

public expense and in a circumstance 

where a parent requests an IEE in an 

area not previously assessed, the public 

agency must, without unnecessary 

delay, either: Initiate a hearing under 34 

C.F.R. § 300.507 to show that its 

evaluation is appropriate; or the public 

agency must ensure that an IEE is 

provided.

2. Require LEAs to conduct a review of 

their policies, procedures, and practices, 

to ensure that LEAs do not limit a 

parent’s right to obtain an IEE at public 

expense to the areas of assessment or 

evaluation components that were 

previously conducted by the public 

agency.