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

www.ed.gov

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

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES

OFFICE OF SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS

DIRECTOR

March 13, 2024

By Email

Honorable Lisa Coons

Superintendent of Public Instruction

Virginia Department of Education

P.O. Box 2120

Richmond, Virginia 23218

Email: lisa.coons@doe.virginia.gov

Dear Superintendent Coons:

The purpose of this letter is to provide an update on the status of the findings and corrective actions identified

by the U.S. Department of Education’s (the Department’s) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)

reported in the Differentiated Monitoring and Support (DMS) monitoring report to the Virginia Department of 

Education (VDOE) dated June 23, 2020.

This letter addresses VDOE’s corrective action submissions to OSEP on September 18, 2020, October 29, 2020, 

March 4, 2021, December 21, 2021, January 25, 2022, March 11, 2022, June 10, 2022, and August 7, 2023. Some of 

the information in this response is also based on telephone meetings with the State on January 15, 2022, April 20, 

2022, and June 20, 2023. OSEP previously responded to VDOE’s corrective action submissions in letters dated

September 1, 2022, February 8, 2022, January 17, 2023, and February 17, 2023. As you are aware, OSEP 

conducted targeted monitoring on related topics the week of September 25, 2023. This letter only addresses the 

status of findings included in the letter dated June 23, 2020. OSEP will document the results of the September 

2023 targeted monitoring activity under separate cover, including any new findings of noncompliance and 

required actions related to the State’s implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s

(IDEA’s) dispute resolution procedures and independent educational evaluation requirements.

The summary of monitoring priorities and outcomes chart, included in this letter, describes the monitoring 

component, finding, required actions, OSEP analysis, and status of finding(s) based on the evidence received by 

OSEP to date.

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

any questions or wish to request technical assistance, please contact your OSEP State Lead.
Page 2—Chief State School Officer

Sincerely,

Valerie C. Williams

cc: Dr. Samantha Hollins

Assistant Superintendent

for Department of Special Populations
VIRGINIA — PART B | 3 

SUMMARY OF MONITORING FINDINGS AND STATUS

MONITORING COMPONENT AND

FINDING REQUIRED ACTIONS OSEP ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

NEXT 

STEPS/STATUS

General Supervision

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

Within 90 days of the date of this letter, 

consistent with the State’s general supervisory 

and monitoring responsibilities described above, 

the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) 

must provide a written plan to OSEP that 

describes how it will ensure that all of its local 

educational agencies (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. 

OSEP’s analysis is included in the 

February 17, 2023, letter and 

accompanying Summary Chart, 

addressed to the State.

CLOSED

1 This citation was modified to reflect changes in the Uniform Guidance (2 C.F.R. § 200) dated November 12, 2020.
VIRGINIA — PART B | 4

MONITORING COMPONENT AND

FINDING REQUIRED ACTIONS OSEP ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

NEXT 

STEPS/STATUS

General Supervision

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.

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:

2. The State revises its general supervision and 

monitoring system to include procedures and 

practices that are reasonably designed, as 

appropriate, to consider and address credible 

allegations of LEA noncompliance in a timely 

manner.

OSEP’s analysis is included in the 

September 1, 2022, letter and 

accompanying Summary Chart, 

addressed to the State.

CLOSED
VIRGINIA — PART B | 5

MONITORING COMPONENT AND

FINDING REQUIRED ACTIONS OSEP ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

NEXT 

STEPS/STATUS

General Supervision

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.

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:

3. The State provides 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.

OSEP’s analysis is included in the 

September 1, 2022, letter and 

accompanying Summary Chart, to 

the State.

CLOSED
VIRGINIA — PART B | 6

MONITORING COMPONENT AND

FINDING REQUIRED ACTIONS OSEP ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

NEXT 

STEPS/STATUS

Dispute Resolution: State 

Complaint Procedures

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 parentcomplainant.

Within 90 days of the date of this letter:

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 develops a 

communication plan with an individual 

complainant.

The State reported to OSEP that it 

has discontinued its practice of 

developing “communication plans” 

with individual complainants.

OSEP conducted additional 

monitoring of the State’s complaint 

resolution procedures in September 

2023, and the findings, including 

any required actions, are set out in 

OSEP’s 2024 DMS monitoring

report.

CLOSED

Due Process Complaint and 

Hearing Procedures

Based on the review of 

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

must:

OSEP’s analysis is included in the 

February 17, 2023, letter and 

CLOSED
VIRGINIA — PART B | 7

MONITORING COMPONENT AND

FINDING REQUIRED ACTIONS OSEP ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

NEXT 

STEPS/STATUS

documents, analysis of data, and 

interviews with State personnel, 

OSEP concludes that:

1. The State is not exercising its 

general supervisory and 

monitoring responsibilities in 

accordance with 

20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(a)(11)(A) 

and 1416(a) and 

20 U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(A) 

and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.149(a) 

and (b) and 300.600(a) and 

(d)(2) with regard to the 

following: 

a. VDOE does not ensure 

and document that LEAs 

track the implementation 

of the timelines for the 

resolution process for due 

process complaints filed 

by parents in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.510 and

for calculating the 

beginning and expiration 

of the 45-day due process 

hearing decision timeline 

in 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), 

unless under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c), a 

hearing officer grants a 

specific extension of the 

45-day timeline at the 

request of a party to the 

1. Submit documentation that the State has 

revised its dispute resolution procedures and 

practices and is implementing those revisions, 

to ensure that:

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.

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).

c. Hearing officers are receiving appropriate 

training allowing them to apply and track 

the resolution period timelines for all due 

process hearings.

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 

accompanying Summary Chart, 

addressed to the State.
VIRGINIA — PART B | 8

MONITORING COMPONENT AND

FINDING REQUIRED ACTIONS OSEP ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

NEXT 

STEPS/STATUS

hearing.

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.

Based on the review of 

documents, analysis of data, and 

interviews with State personnel, 

OSEP concludes that:

2. 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.

be consistent with the required actions 

described above.
VIRGINIA — PART B | 9

MONITORING COMPONENT AND

FINDING REQUIRED ACTIONS OSEP ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

NEXT 

STEPS/STATUS

Due Process Complaint and 

Hearing Procedures

Based on the review of 

documents, analysis of data, and 

interviews with State personnel, 

OSEP concludes that: 

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.

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

must:

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 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.

The State submitted documentation 

on August 7, 2023, which 

demonstrates that the State 

conducted the required review, and 

revised its data collection processes 

to ensure that it will be able to 

provide accurate data on due 

process hearings.

CLOSED

Mediation

Based on the review of 

documents and interviews with 

State personnel, OSEP concludes 

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

must provide:

1. Documentation demonstrating that the State

has established revised procedures and

OSEP’s analysis is included in the 

September 1, 2022, letter and 

accompanying Summary Chart,

addressed to the State.

CLOSED
VIRGINIA — PART B | 10

MONITORING COMPONENT AND

FINDING REQUIRED ACTIONS OSEP ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

NEXT 

STEPS/STATUS

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 State 

educational agency (SEA) and 

has no personal or professional 

interest that would conflict with 

the mediator’s objectivity.

practices, and is implementing those

revisions, to ensure that the State’s mediation

coordinator, an employee of the SEA, does

not co-mediate and is not present during

mediation sessions.

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.

Independent Educational 

Evaluations (IEE)

Based on a review of documents 

and interviews with State 

personnel, 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 

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,

OSEP’s analysis is included in the 

February 17, 2023, letter and 

accompanying Summary Chart, 

addressed to the State.

CLOSED
VIRGINIA — PART B | 11

MONITORING COMPONENT AND

FINDING REQUIRED ACTIONS OSEP ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

NEXT 

STEPS/STATUS

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.

remove the word “component” following the

word “evaluation.”

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).

3. Upon completion of the changes to the

Administrative Code, submit to OSEP

documentation of the revisions.

Independent Educational 

Evaluations (IEE)

Based on a review of documents 

and interviews with State 

personnel, 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 

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 

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 

The State provided a copy of its

email of October 10, 2023, that 

included a link to the survey it sent 

to its LEA Superintendents 

requiring each LEA to: 

1) review its policies, procedures, 

and practices related to IEEs for 

consistency with the State’s 

revised Administrative Code;

and

CLOSED
VIRGINIA — PART B | 12

MONITORING COMPONENT AND

FINDING REQUIRED ACTIONS OSEP ANALYSIS AND COMMENTS

NEXT 

STEPS/STATUS

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.

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, without unnecessary 

delay, either: 

i. Initiates a hearing under 

34 C.F.R. § 300.507 to show that 

its evaluation is appropriate; or

ii. 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.

2) provide a certification to VDOE

by October 31, 2023, to 

document that the LEA’s review 

had been completed.

In its email correspondence to 

OSEP on November 9, 2023, the 

State reported it is conducting 

follow up monitoring activities with 

14 of its LEAs based on the

information contained in, or missing 

from, their certification 

submissions, along with concerns 

raised by the LEAs’ constituents.

In September 2023, OSEP 

conducted monitoring of the State’s 

oversight of IEE implementation by 

LEAs, and the relevant findings, 

including any required actions, are 

set out in OSEP’s 2024 DMS 

monitoring report.