Overview
During the audit period, DESE did not always ensure that school districts implemented special education corrective action plans within its established timeframes. Specifically, 13 (26%) of the 50 special education complaints requiring corrective actions in our sample had corrective action plans implemented after the established deadline. These delays ranged from 1 day to 270 days beyond the required timeframe, with an average delay of 94 days.
In one case, DESE took as long as 11 months to follow up with a school district regarding an overdue corrective action plan. In several other cases, follow-up was delayed by multiple months, significantly prolonging the resolution of identified noncompliance and potentially delaying the delivery of required services to students.
Additionally, within our sample of 50 special education complaints requiring corrective actions, we identified three data entry errors in DESE’s tracking system: one where the corrective action plan’s receipt date was recorded incorrectly; one where the corrective action plan’s receipt date was not recorded at all, despite the fact that DESE received the plan; and one where the corrective action plan’s due date was entered incorrectly.
If DESE does not ensure that school districts implement corrective action plans in a timely manner, then students may continue to experience delays in receiving special education services. This may negatively impact their educational progress and deny them remedies for the school’s noncompliance. In addition, inaccurate or missing data in DESE’s tracking system weakens oversight and limits DESE’s ability to hold school districts accountable for timely implementation of corrective action plans.
Authoritative Guidance
According to 34 CFR 300.600,
(e) In exercising its monitoring responsibilities under paragraph (d) of [34 CFR 300.600], the State must ensure that when it identifies noncompliance with the requirements of this part 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.
DESE informed us that corrective action due dates are determined on a case-by-case basis, and that it uses the guidelines in the following table to assist in determining corrective action due dates.
DESE-Established Internal Case Resolution Timeline Guidelines
| Non-Compliance | Sample Remedy | Timeline |
|---|---|---|
| Minor Procedural | Memorandum | 2 Weeks |
| Major Procedural | Training Policy Change | 2 Months 4 Months |
| [Individualized Education Program] Implementation | Compensatory Services | Varies depending on amount of services ordered. Consider the impact of school break periods, holidays, etc. |
| Home/Hospital Tutoring | Tutoring Services | Varies depending on amount of services ordered. Consider the impact of school break periods, holidays, etc. |
| Bullying | Safety Plan Investigation Policy Change | 2 Weeks 2 Weeks 4 Months |
| Discipline | Expunge Record Revise Notices Manifestation Determination Measure Progress | 2 Weeks 1 Month 1 Month 1 Month |
Source: Email from DESE, sent on May 22, 2025
Reasons for Issues
DESE did not have written policies and procedures, including monitoring controls, to ensure that school districts implemented corrective action plans in a timely manner. It also did not have sufficient controls to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information related to corrective action plans that was entered into its tracking system. DESE told us that, although it established its own, shorter deadlines for corrective action plans, federal regulations—specifically, 34 CFR 300.600(e)—allowed up to one year from the identification of noncompliance to correct the issue. However, DESE did not explain why it repeatedly violated its own policies and, in some cases, violated the federal requirement to ensure that issues of noncompliance are corrected within one year of the date of the Letter of Closure.
Recommendations
- DESE should develop and implement written policies, procedures, and monitoring controls to ensure that school districts implement corrective action plans within established timeframes.
- DESE should implement a verification process to ensure the accuracy and completeness of information entered into its tracking system.
Auditee’s Response
Please see our response to Finding #2 on special education complaints above that outlines the substantial changes PRS made to its implementation of special education complaint decisions.
Highlights of these substantial changes include:
- PRS has restructured to create a team dedicated to handling the implementation of final decisions to facilitate and verify the timely correction of identified noncompliance.
- Under this structure, following the issuance of a decision, a complaint is typically reassigned to a member of the team specifically tasked with overseeing the implementation of the ordered corrective action plan.
- In 2024, PRS staff received internal training on record keeping within the complaint management system to ensure records are timely, accurate, and consistent.
- In its 2025 IDEA Part B State Complaints Investigator Guide, PRS included written internal procedures for the effective implementation of the final decision to include technical assistance, negotiations, and corrective actions to achieve compliance that accurately reflects DESE’s obligations regarding effective implementation of its final decisions.
- PRS decisions now specify a greater level of detail as to any compensatory services that are ordered, including the specific amount of services.
- This modification assists with the faster delivery of compensatory services to students, allows the process to be more streamlined for complainants and local education authorities, and makes the verification of correction of noncompliance more thorough and efficient.
- Since the audit period, PRS has modified its complaint management database to better meet its corrective action verification needs. . . .
In circumstances where PRS issues a finding of noncompliance, PRS may require the district, school, or public agency to implement corrective action(s). PRS has broad authority to determine the corrective action(s) necessary to resolve the noncompliance identified in a specific complaint. Noncompliance identified by PRS must be corrected by the district/school/public agency as soon as possible, and in no case later than one year after DESE identifies the noncompliance. See [34 CFR 300.600(e)].
Aside from the one-year requirement, all other corrective action due dates are determined by PRS on a case-by-case basis to facilitate a district’s, school’s or public agency’s timely implementation of the ordered corrective action. The chart that PRS provided to the Auditor is an internal guide used to assist PRS staff in establishing due dates for corrective action. These due dates typically range from weeks to months, depending on various factors, such as the nature and scope of the ordered corrective actions. They can also vary depending on the timing of holidays, school break periods, student/family circumstances, or other key factors that have the potential to delay implementation. . . .
DESE is responsible for verifying the implementation of ordered corrective action within one year of when it was ordered. PRS sets interim due dates to build in adequate time to obtain documentation from the district, review it, and/or utilize enforcement actions before the one-year requirement outlined in [34 CFR 300.600(e)]. If a district fails to meet the due date set by PRS, PRS will utilize DESE’s model of enforcement to achieve compliance. DESE’s model of enforcement is intended to be progressive, using the lowest levels of sanctions and/or enforcement necessary to address the noncompliance. DESE’s progressive enforcement actions range from providing the entity with technical assistance and professional development to redirecting or withholding funding from the entity.
In rare circumstances, if a district, school, or public agency does not correct identified noncompliance in a timely manner (i.e., within one calendar year from PRS’s determination of noncompliance), PRS will not close the original finding until it has verified that the noncompliance has been corrected and may impose additional corrective actions and/or pursue enforcement actions, as it deems necessary.
This approach is consistent with the federal government’s guidance on this topic.4 Further, DESE’s General Supervision System contains additional accountability mechanisms that address local education authorities (LEAs) that fall into this category, which is also consistent with federal guidance.5 For example, PRS findings and related corrective action compliance are considered as a part of DESE’s public school monitoring efforts and a part of the annual LEA determinations.
[Footnotes:]
4. See OSEP’s State General Supervision Responsibilities Under Parts B and C of the IDEA (B–17). “What factors should a State consider if [a Local Education Agency “LEA”] . . .has longstanding noncompliance with the IDEA requirements? Answer: If an LEA . . . did not correct identified noncompliance in a timely manner (i.e., within one year from the written notification of noncompliance), the State must still verify that the noncompliance was subsequently corrected. If an LEA . . . is not yet correctly implementing the statutory or regulatory requirement(s), the State needs to identify the cause(s) of continuing noncompliance and take steps to address the continued lack of compliance, including, as appropriate, enforcement actions . . .”
5. See Id. “If an LEA . . . is not yet correctly implementing the statutory or regulatory requirement(s), the State needs to identify the cause(s) of continuing noncompliance and take steps to address the continued lack of compliance including, as appropriate, enforcement actions outlined in Section E, State Enforcement Through Determinations and Other Methods [of OSEP’s State General Supervision Responsibilities Under Parts B and C of the IDEA].” See also [34 CFR 300.626].
Auditor’s Reply
As already noted in this report, we acknowledge that federal regulations allow up to one year from the identification of noncompliance to correct issues. However, because DESE itself went beyond the federal regulations outlined in 34 CFR 300.600 with its own internal policies by establishing alternative deadlines for itself (deadlines that DESE acknowledged), we assessed DESE’s performance based on its internal policies. The fact that DESE adopted these internal deadlines indicates that they were considered an important mechanism for driving timely compliance. Our testing identified instances in which these DESE-established deadlines lapsed without documented follow-up. Additionally, in two cases, the one-year federal limit was also exceeded by the school district and left unaddressed by DESE, confirming that the noncompliance issues that we identified in our audit extended beyond noncompliance with internal requirements and into noncompliance with federal requirements.
As indicated in DESE’s response, corrective action due dates for school districts are determined by DESE on a case-by-case basis. When asked during the audit how these deadlines are established, we were provided with internal guidelines used by DESE staff, which are referenced above. However, DESE has not established these guidelines into formal policy. DESE explained that while staff use the guidelines to assist in setting deadlines, each case is considered individually and may vary due to a range of factors, such as the nature and scope of the corrective action, timing of holidays and school break periods, and specific student or family circumstances.
We believe DESE should formalize its current internal guidelines into written policy to ensure the process for establishing corrective action due dates is transparent, consistent, and clearly communicated to all stakeholders.
We strongly encourage DESE to implement our recommendations regarding this matter. As part of our post-audit review process, we will follow up on this matter in approximately six months.
See Appendix B for more information on program improvements that DESE made and reported to us.
| Date published: | August 26, 2025 |
|---|