17 Years of Noncompliance: Virginia Department of Education Fails Students and to Perform Its General Supervisory Duties
For at least 17 years, Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) has failed to ensure compliance with Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and implementing Virginia regulations governing independent educational evaluations (IEE).
During the last four years, VDOE has failed to ensure that all local education agencies (LEA) statewide have implemented the changes required by U.S. Department of Education's (USDOE) Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in its June 23, 2020, differentiated monitoring and support (DMS) report on VDOE.
A Brief History of IEE Noncompliance: 2007 to 2024
2007 to 2008:
Fairfax County Public Schools
In 2007, Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) refused to fund Independent Educational Evaluations (IEE) at public expense and refused to file due process to defend its refusals to fully fund IEEs at public expense.
Parents of a student who has disabilities requested an IEE after FCPS evaluated their student. FCPS did not file for due process to defend the appropriateness of its own IEE. Instead, FCPS approved the IEE and the IEE provider. When the IEE exceeded FCPS' cap for IEE fees by $100, FCPS refused to reimburse the parents the $100 overage, and refused to file for due process to defend its choice to refuse payment of the $100 overage, even though the parents demonstrated unique circumstances justifying the $100 overage.
The parents filed a state complaint.
FCPS chose to spend more than $100 to fight the complaint, rather than refunding the $100 to the parents.
VDOE issued its Letter of Findings (LOF) January 14, 2008, and found FCPS in noncompliance.
In the analysis and findings section of its LOF, VDOE states:
"Although a school division may, in an attempt to avoid unreasonable cost for IEEs, establish a cap on the allowable charges for such evaluations, the school division must allow the parents an opportunity to demonstrate that unique circumstances existed that warranted an IEE that did not meet the school division's criteria. Should the school division believe that there is no justification for the excess case; the school division cannot in its sole judgement determine that it will pay only the maximum allowable cost and no further. The school division must, without unnecessary delay, initiate a due process hearing to demonstrate that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet the agency's criteria and that there were no unique circumstances that would have justified a rate than normally allowed. Letter to Anonymous, 103 LRP 22731 (OSEP 2002). If the school division chooses not to initiate a due process hearing, then the school division must ensure that the parent is reimbursed for the full cost of the IEE. Letter to Parker, 41 IDELR 155 (OSEP 2004).
"FCPS' demonstration that speech/language IEEs which meet their criteria have been obtained by other individuals within the school division is insufficient to find that FCPS satisfied compliance in this instance. The record supports that the [PARENTS] attempted to locate an evaluator that would provide an IEE within the criteria established by FCPS. However, when this proved unsuccessful they chose a provider, Skill Builders, LLC, from the list provided by FCPS.
"FCPS actions in preparing a list of names and addresses of evaluators that meet their established criteria, including costs limitations, is consistent with the requirements of applicable state and federal special education regulations. However, in this case, the [PARENTS] submitted documentation to support that there were mitigating circumstances in finding an evaluator that could provide all of the speech and language assessments that they considered were necessary to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of their son, at the cost specified by FCPS. At that point, as required by the regulations stated above, and reinforced through OSEP memorandums, FCPS incurred an obligation of initiating due process to contest the excess cost or reimbursing the [PARENTS] for the full costs which they incurred in obtaining a speech/language IEE.
"Our review of the record reflected that FCPS did not initiate a due process hearing to demonstrate that the IEE did not meet their criteria or that there were no unique circumstances that warranted the excess cost and refused to reimburse the [PARENTS] for the full cost of the IEE that obtained from Skill Builders."
VDOE's LOF provided FCPS until February 14, 2008, to "accomplish" the following corrective actions:
"1. Prepare and disseminate an instructional memorandum to the personnel FCPS deems appropriate to address requirements of the federal and state special education laws outlines above as a remind of the procedures that must be followed to ensure that independent educational evaluations (ISSs) are provided at public expense or how the school division my [sic] challenge the IEE through a due process hearing.
"2. Reimburse the [PARENTS] for the full cost of the IEE they obtained from Skill Builders, LLC.
"Please submit documentation that these corrective actions have been taken to our office by February 14, 2008.
"FCPS is asked to please maintain documentation of the actions taken required in this Corrective Action Plan (CAP), as this information may be requested during our CAP implementation follow-up process on a later date."
Within the subsequent 12+ years, FCPS engaged in the same noncompliance and VDOE failed to engage in monitoring actions that would stop the noncompliance.
2009–2018:
IEE noncompliance continued throughout Virginia. Virginia's IEE regulations were inconsistent with IDEA's and both VDOE and LEAs division wide chose to follow noncompliant state regulations and ignore and vilify parents who repeatedly pointed out problems (more on this below).
2019:
May 2019, USDOE OSEP conducted an on-site monitoring of VDOE after years of receiving concerning feedback from parents statewide.
Fairfax County Public Schools
Also in 2019, 12 years after filing their 2007 IEE state complaint against FCPS, the 2007 parents again found themselves in the same situation, but this time with their youngest child. The 2007 parents requested an IEE, FCPS refused to fully fund the IEE at public expense—even though the parent again demonstrated unique circumstances that warranted the overage fee—and FCPS refused to pay the overage and to file for due process to defend its refusal to pay the overage fee.
The 2007 parents filed a FOIA request related to FCPS' IEE rates and how they're established. (See "FOIA: Fairfax County Public Schools Independent Educational Evaluations") Although the 2007 parents paid $500 for a speech language evaluation in 2007, it wasn't until almost ten years later, in 2017, that FCPS determined $500 to be the appropriate cap for this evaluation. Yet, the data in FCPS's FOIA response indicates FCPS' 2017 fiscal-year-to-date average for speech language evaluations already exceeded $500, coming in at an average of $512.50. Hence, FCPS was setting a cap below its own average—and basing its cap on what it had paid out previously, rather than actual market rates. Although inflation increased in the region, and although FCPS's own rate change documentations showed an increase in rates just between 2015 and 2017, FCPS kept its 2017 rates in place through 2022.
FCPS' internal emails provide a behind-the-scenes look at how FCPS arrived at its decision to deny the 2007 parents' IEE requests in 2019:
September 9, 2019:
Dawn Schaefer emailed Jane Strong:
“We expected [Parent] to choose Mindwell based on her chatter on social media and with us. I’m wondering if you’d like us to grant the full cost at Mindwell or hold the line at $2400. This evaluation would not be above and beyond the evaluations done by other evaluators for our established rate of $2400.”
September 10, 2019:
Dawn Schaefer emailed Jane Strong:
“We just poured over our data since 2017, and we have very rarely had evaluators seek additional payment from us. Mindwell has been charging $3600-4000 for psychoeducational evaluations since at least 2017. [Parent] has received all of the documentation regarding our fee setting via FOIA. Lourrie is going to respond to her in the morning and ask what her data is to say the customary cost is $3800.”
Jane Strong emailed Dawn Schaefer:
“Have we paid mindwell that high a fee in the past?”
Dawn Schaefer emailed Jane Strong:
“Yes, prior to us resetting our fee schedule in May 2017.”
September 11, 2019:
Lourrie Duddridge emailed one of the 2007 parents:
"You have stated that the cost estimate of $2800-3800 for the psychoeducational at MindWell and $650 for the speech and language evaluation at Skill Builders is reflective of the usual and customary costs for psychoeducational and speech and language evaluations in our area. Please provide us with the documentation related to your position so that we may consider it.
September 26, 2019:
Lourrie Duddridge responded to another staff member about the IEE-related FOIA submitted by the parent and admitted FCPS' 2019 rates were out of date:
"We did no research in terms of usual and customary costs for the 18 - 19 school year."
FCPS knew its rates were outdated and that it had paid the same Mindwell provider the same amount at least two years prior, but chose to refuse the parent's request and failed to file for due process to defend its decision. The 2007 parents filed a state complaint in 2019 that was almost the same as the one filed in 2007. This time, however, VDOE refused to find FCPS at fault for the same noncompliance.
Around the same time, I was trying to obtain an IEE and contacted numerous providers in the FCPS area. Their rates were above FCPS' IEE fee cap or their evaluations were tailored for FCPS' pricing, hence they weren't comprehensive. I continued to send the information I obtained to Jen Krempasky to make her aware FCPS' rates were out of line with current pricing. She ignored the data provided to her.
September 29, 2019:
Dawn Schaefer emailed Jane Strong and Teresa Johnson:
"Her berating of Jen over IEE rates is becoming ridiculous, and is simply further fodder for the VDOE complaint and/or OCR complaint she's getting ready to file over IEEs.
"I'd like to shut this down but I know no matter what we do it won't end. She's advising multiple families so paying for whatever evaluation she wants won't do any good either."
Dawn's comments indicate that she made a decision related to provision of an IEE based on my advocacy and my engagement in my freedom of speech, rather than on the need of the student. In addition, I wasn't "berating" Jen. I was pointing out all the data collected, which showed FCPS' rates to be out of date—something Lourrie Duddridge advised another staff member three days prior.
In the years that followed, FCPS continued to refuse to pay in full for IEEs that went over its fee caps. (See more on this below.)
2020:
USDOE OSEP
June 23, 2020, USDOE OSEP included the results of its May 2019 monitoring in its publicly released Differentiated Monitoring and Support findings on VDOE, in which it put VDOE on notice of its failure to comply with requirements under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Among its findings, USDOE OSEP faulted VDOE for ignoring credible allegations of noncompliance. In response, VDOE issued a ten-page letter from Superintendent of Special Education and Student Services Samantha Hollins, which included false and misleading information, rather than an immediate dedication to remedying noncompliance.
On the issue of IEE noncompliance, USDOE OSEP found that Virginia regulation's inclusion of the word "component" restricted IEEs and was inconsistent with IDEA.
For example, imagine a school division administers a psychological evaluation and an educational evaluation to your student and states that, together, those two evaluations equate to a comprehensive initial evaluation.
Now imagine you disagree with the division's evaluation and you decide to request an IEE that includes psychological, educational, speech-language, auditory processing, and visual processing evaluations.
The school district has the following two choices:
1. It can refuse your request and file for due process to defend its refusal.
2. It can approve your request and pay for the evaluation at public expense.
In the case of Virginia, school divisions refused the "components" of the evaluations they didn't previously administer and then refused to file due process to defend its refusals.
Virginia maintained that parents had a right to an IEE for evaluations about which they disagreed. Hence, Virginia reasoned that parents didn't have the right to request additional "components" through an IEE, because, if the divisions didn't previously administer the component, there was nothing about which parents could disagree.
Virginia failed to understand that the language of IDEA addresses disagreement with evaluations, not with components of evaluations. Hence, if a parent's disagreement is with the scope of a school division's evaluation, the parent has the right to request an IEE at public expense that is wider in scope than the school division's evaluation.
In addition, if a parent requests an IEE with three specific evaluations, the school division can't deny a later request to add two more evaluations to the IEE. It might be that data collected from the first three led to the need for the second two. For example, upon completion of an IEE, a neuropsychologist might suggest a vision processing evaluation because his own evaluation led him to believe the student has convergence insufficiency issues.
In its Differentiated Monitoring and Support findings, USDOE stated the following:
"The provisions in Virginia Administrative Code 8VAC20-81-170(B)(2)(a) and (e), as interpreted by the State and implemented by its LEAs, are inconsistent with the language and intent of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b), which do not limit a parent’s right to an IEE at public expense to circumstances where the parents disagree with the results of a specific evaluation component already conducted by the public agency.
"When presented with inquiries from individuals about the scope of a parent’s right to an IEE at public expense, since 1995, OSEP has consistently taken the position that a parent’s right to an IEE at public expense is not limited to those assessments that were part of the public agency’s evaluation. OSEP’s interpretation is supported by the plain language of the statute and regulation, which do not restrict a parent’s right to an IEE at public expense to those assessments previously conducted by the public agency. See OSEP Letter to Fisher (1995); OSEP Letter to Baus (2015), available at: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/policy-letter-february-23-2015-todebbie-baus/; and OSEP Letter to Carroll (2016), available at: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/ideafiles/policy-letter-october-22-2016-to-jennifer-carroll/. That is, disagreement over the evaluation conducted by an LEA includes a disagreement about the appropriate scope of the assessment, such as when an LEA fails to assess suspected areas of a child’s educational needs simply because of shortages of evaluation personnel. In addition, OSEP has explained that a parent’s right to an IEE is not contingent upon the public agency being first afforded an opportunity to conduct an assessment in an area that was not part of the initial evaluation or reevaluation. See OSEP Letter to Thorne (1990) and OSEP letter to Carroll (2016)."
In addition, USDOE's findings reiterated the following:
"If a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the public agency must, without unnecessary delay, either:
"1. Initiate due process procedures under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507 through 300.513 to show that its evaluation is appropriate; or
"2. Ensure that an IEE is provided at public expense, unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507 through 300.513 that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet agency criteria. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(1) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.502."
Fairfax County Public Schools
After USDOE's June 23, 2020, DMS findings were released. I sent FCPS the findings and it confirmed receipt, but FCPS continued to refuse evaluations that weren't components of its prior evaluations. FCPS' excuse? FCPS stated VDOE didn't provide any guidance to FCPS, hence it would continue along the same path instead of following USDOE OSEP's required actions.
I filed a state complaint against FCPS. However, on at least two more occasions—July 6 and August 13—FCPS issued two more IEE denials. FCPS did not file for due process to defend its denials.
October 2, 2020, VDOE issued a LOF finding FCPS in noncompliance in response to the complaint I filed.
In response to being found at fault for systemic noncompliance, FCPS' Dawn Schaefer expressed an interest in appealing the decision, for reasons other than being in compliance with IDEA and implementing state regulations.
October 2, 2020
Dawn Schaefer to John Cafferky, Wesley Allen, Robert Falconi, and Michelle Boyd:
"FYI—I think we need to appeal the finding regarding IEEs. VDOE has not changed their regulation yet, and they are essentially telling us we have to implement OSEP’s opinion-- that they are apparently appealing themselves. It makes no sense.
"I’ll stand down if others think we should just pay for the IEE. Just know this finding has far reaching consequences. This parent is very well-connected and has her own advocacy website."
November 7, 2020, FCPS issued at least one more IEE denial letter.
December 14, 2020, JLARC released the report “K-12 Special Education in Virginia“, which is based on its investigation of VDOE and which cites USDOE OSEP's IEE findings:
"OSEP’s findings specifically cited concerns about VDOE’s process for tracking due process hearing timelines, its policy of allowing VDOE staff to sit in on mediations, and a provision of Virginia’s special education regulations regarding a parent’s right to an independent education evaluation at the public’s expense. In September 2020, VDOE issued a letter questioning the validity of the findings but expressed its commitment to addressing identified areas of non-compliance. As of November 2020, OSEP was still reviewing VDOE’s proposed corrective actions."
2021:
Fairfax County Public Schools
January 25, 2021—seven months after USDOE found Virginia in noncompliance and almost four months after VDOE found FCPS in noncompliance—FCPS provided training to its staff about "changes" regarding IEEs. However, FCPS presented the information as if the federal regulations had changed, rather than that the changes were in response to FCPS and VDOE being found in noncompliance of IDEA. The following provides a partial transcript from the online training presentation and from the online chat that occurred during the training.
Partial Transcript of January 25, 2021, FCPS Training
Rory Duffield (starting at about the 1:23:28 point of the meeting):
"I’m one of the on one the specialists in the office of due process and eligibility. And we’ve been asked to kind of give you guys a little bit of an update regarding individual education, evaluations or IEEs.
"This particular summer, the super superintendent's memo went out, as you can see [inaudible] to all school divisions explaining some clarification. The federal guidelines regarding IEE requests and with regards to parent’s rights, specifically as you can kind of read through this slide is that parents can now ask for an IEE in an area in which their child was not previously assessed.
"So, for example, if a child during reevaluation or initial eligibility only had a psychological, social-cultural, and an educational evaluation, the parent could also then in an IEE request a speech and language. Prior to us realizing or finding this out, it used to be one-for-one, but we are now realizing that we cannot limit the parents to that. So that’s what came out and that superintendent’s memo.
"So what that exactly means to us as a school team before I move on to the next slide, and there are two takeaways that we would like for you guys to understand from this new guidance we have received. Specifically, because parents can now request an IEE in an area not evaluated, that there may now be some eligibility meetings or IEP meetings or whatever the case is where we have to consider a a private evaluation in which we do not have an FCPS equivalent evaluation. And that can also affect different areas of eligibility that we did not initially consider when we’re going through eligibility.
"So for example, for parent requests of speech and language evaluation, and it had never been done before, and we never had any concerns of that, the parent for some reason does, then we have to consider that and we would have to look at that private evaluation with good eagle eyes and looking through the those evaluation. So . . .
"We made this, we are definitely starting to see some new evaluations being requested from parents. So that is becoming a little bit of a hot topic and that’s the reason why we wanted to bring it to your attention here today. So, just keep that in mind as we move forward. It’s no part in terms of the school team, not necessarily doing a good job with considering or doing a fully comprehensive evaluation, but just happening.
"I see a question in the chat, if there’s a private assessment does FCPS have to do an equivalent evaluation, like if they do request an IEE speech, whether they would then do an FCPS speech evaluation. It would be nice to do that, Erin, if we have the opportunity to. The key factor that we sometimes run into with that is that we don’t want to duplicate the same exact testing that was done in the private, because then it doesn’t make the results necessarily valid, so we might do some supplemental testing potentially, to get some additional information just so we can kind of have something on our end. But that’s not always gonna be the case where we have the opportunity because the parent may not give us consent to do that evaluation. So of course, it’s contingent upon that."
Partial Chat for 1.25.21 FCPS Special Education Lead Teacher Meeting
Erin VanAllan, special ed teacher:
"If there is a private assessment, does FCPS have to do an equivalent evaluation? Like if they do request an IEE for speech should we then do an FCPS speech eval?"
Lourrie Duddridge, Due Process and Eligibility:
"It is not REQUIRED that FCPS conduct an evaluation."
Loudon County Public Schools
August 12, 2021, September 30, 2021, and October 8, 2021, complaints were filed on behalf of students in Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS). Although VDOE initially opened the first complaint August 23, 2021, it subsequently combined the complaints and opened a systemic complaint investigation October 19, 2021.
2022:
Loudon County Public Schools
January 28, 2022, almost six months after the first complaint was filed, VDOE released its LOF stating it found LCPS at fault for systemic noncompliance and that LCPS would be required to implement a CAP.
USDOE OSEP
February 8, 2022, USDOE issued a DMS update letter to VDOE, in which it stated continued concerns related to IEEs:
"As you are aware, our office continues to be contacted by multiple parents and other stakeholders in Virginia regarding the State’s system of general supervision including, but not limited to, monitoring, due process, and policies and procedures governing independent educational evaluations (IEEs). While we understand that these communications only convey one side of often complicated situations, we remain concerned about the volume and nature of the concerns raised by these individuals and groups. Specifically, parents and other stakeholders have shared concerns about VDOE’s compliance with its general supervisory responsibilities. Through this letter, we are providing notice that OSEP intends to engage further with the State on the following allegations . . .
"b. Whether, in certain situations, the maximum allowable charges for evaluations established by an LEA result in a denial of parents’ rights to an IEE at public expense."
Fairfax County Public Schools
Internal FCPS emails from Spring 2022 indicate that FCPS decided it was time to update its IEE fee caps after years of 1) the rates remaining the same and 2) FCPS insisting the rates reflected current market rates for Northern Virginia providers—and then based payment refusals to parents based on outdated rates.
USDOE OSEP
September 1, 2022, USDOE issued another letter to VDOE, this time expanding on the concerns expressed in its February 8, 2022, letter:
"OSEP’s February 8, 2022 follow up letter to the required actions under Independent Educational Evaluations, in which OSEP requested the State to 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.
"a) OSEP has been copied on correspondence from parents addressed to LEAs or the State regarding concerns with compliance with IEE requirements including the continued use of “denial” letters contrary to IDEA.
"OSEP is concerned that the State has not fully disseminated updated guidance on IEEs nor required LEAs to ensure they do not limit a parent’s right to IEEs. OSEP found outdated guidance listed on the State’s website, including guidance located here: VDOE: Special Education State Regulations, Laws & Policies (virginia.gov)."
2023:
USDOE OSEP
January 17, 2023, USDOE issued another letter to VDOE stating VDOE had yet to fully address USDOE's 2020 IEE findings:
"VDOE has not provided sufficient information to demonstrate correction of the identified noncompliance related to State complaint procedures, due process complaint and hearing procedures, and IEEs."
February 17, 2023—for the second month and third year in a row——USDOE issued another letter to VDOE stating further actions were required to close the IEE finding of noncompliance:
"Through the review of State-submitted and publicly available documentation and information, and that provided by parents, in addition to the continuation of improper practices previously cited, OSEP also has identified at least five LEAs that have procedures or practices for IEEs that appear inconsistent with IDEA’s regulations generally requiring the public agency to either fund the IEE (with an exception) or file a due process complaint to prove its evaluation was proper. 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2)."
May 12, 2023, USDOE issued another letter to VDOE, this time confirming continued monitoring, to include a September 2023 "onsite" that would include monitoring of IEEs.
Loudoun County Public Schools
July 14, 2023, VDOE again found LCPS in noncompliance regarding IEEs. Both of these LCPS findings echo VDOE's 2008 findings against FCPS.
In a bit of irony, in its July 14, 2023, LOF against LCPS, VDOE states that VDOE itself is not at fault for failures regarding its general supervisory duties. And yet . . . VDOE's regulations were inconsistent with IDEA, VDOE restricted IDEA, VDOE supported local restrictions on IEEs, and VDOE failed to ensure compliance with the USDOE OSEP mandated IEE regulation changes.
2024:
USDOE OSEP
March 13, 2024, almost four years after its first findings were released, USDOE issued new findings and more evidence that VDOE's IEE failures were continuing.
"The State has not ensured that its LEAs comply with the IEE requirements in the State’s revised regulation at 8VAC20-81.170.B.2.a and c, and IDEA’s requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502.
"OSEP continues to receive inquiries from parents who report, and often provide documentation demonstrating, that their LEA is not following required procedures when responding to the parent’s request for an IEE at public expense.
"VDOE acknowledged it must take additional steps to ensure LEAs comply with the State’s revised regulation at 8VAC20-81.170.B.2.a and c, and IDEA’s requirements in 34 C.F.R. § 300.502. In its August 7, 2023, corrective action submission to OSEP, VDOE proposed to take the following actions pending approval from OSEP:
(1) Require local school divisions to provide assurances that the required review of policies, procedures, and practices was conducted with certification and date to be provided by the local division superintendent or their designee.
(2) Review the IEE policies and procedures from the five specific LEAs as requested by OSEP in its February 17, 2023, correspondence to VDOE. Any noncompliance will be identified, and a formal report issued to the LEA with required corrective action
(3) Incorporate the review of policies, procedures, and practices regarding IEEs in the State’s cyclical general supervision and monitoring process in order to conduct a detailed review of each local school division in Virginia.
"During the onsite visit, OSEP recommended that VDOE implement the actions listed above. Subsequent to the visit, VDOE provided documentation of its progress toward carrying out these actions. Specifically, the State provided a copy of the October 10, 2023 email that included a link to the survey it sent to its LEA Superintendents requiring each LEA to: (1) review its policies, procedures, and practices related to IEEs for consistency with the State’s revised Administrative Code; and (2) provide a certification by October 31, 2023 to document that the review had been completed. In its November 9, 2023 email correspondence to OSEP, the State reported that it is conducting follow up monitoring activities with 14 of its LEAs based on the information contained in, or missing from, their certification submissions, along with concerns raised by the LEAs’ constituents.
"On November 3, 2023, VDOE submitted draft protocols to evaluate LEA compliance with the IEE requirements as a component of the State’s cyclical monitoring. In a November 17, 2023 telephone call, OSEP provided technical assistance and suggested revisions to the State’s draft monitoring protocols."
Prince William County Public Schools
May 3, 2024, VDOE found Prince William County Public Schools (PWCPS) at fault for failure to implement federal and state special education regulations at a systemic level—after a parent filed a state complaint
VDOE identified four counts of noncompliance related to PWCPS' division-wide independent educational evaluation (IEE) practices, to include failure to follow USDOE OSEP's June 2020 required changes.