Written State Complaints

Does any SEA officially permit a complainant to amend a state complaint more than 30 days into the complaint investigation completion timeline? A complainant asked permission to amend the state complaint to include new issues and proposed resolutions. Our regulations do not include any specific procedures on amending a complaint, especially this far into the process. I can see the benefit of not requiring an individual to file a new complaint; but I also see the negatives because it could be abused and create conclusion and finality issues for both LEAs and complaint investigators.

Do other states make a determination that a filed special education complaint alleging a denial of FAPE ( such as a scenario where a complainant alleges that  is not “reasonably calculated” or similar complainant language) may not be investigated as a special education complaint ? If so, how does that determination at the state level fall within the parameters of this guidance? Additionally, would it make a difference if the parent has consented to the IEP?

Are you aware of any state guidance, policies, rules, or laws regarding special education advocates in your state?

Does your state have a statutory or regulatory definition of special education advocacy? Does your state license or certify special education advocates? If so, who does the licensure or certification? Can you direct me to your requirements? Does your state limit the activities of a special education advocate? For example, may an advocate represent a parent in a due process hearing?

We have two state complaints that were put into abeyance due to a request for a due process hearing that contained the same issues. The petitioner had requested a withdrawal of the due process hearing one business day prior to the scheduled hearing due to allegations of bias against the petitioner by the tribunal. The tribunal denied the request and subsequently dismissed the due process case with prejudice due to the petitioner’s failure to comply with the orders of the tribunal.

A due process complaint, filed on March 12, 2020 and set for hearing on October 24, 2020, alleges a school district failed to conduct an initial evaluation following a parent’s request.  A state complaint filed this week by the same party involves a similar allegation following a second request for an evaluation by the parent, but this allegation is based on new facts that arose after the due process complaint was filed. An evaluation has not been completed following either request.

When a DPH is closed, is it the SEA’s responsibility to contact the parent to ensure all of their original complaint was resolved within the DPH  and to inquire if an AC needs to be reopened on any issue not decided during the hearing? Or is the parent’s responsibility to reach back out to the SEA if there are lingering issues not resolved by the DPH order?

We need of clarification of what other states interpret 34 CFR 300.323(f). Scenario:  Student with a disability, who has an IEP, moves to a new state (after the completion of school in their home state), and begins a new school year in the new state. Question:  Does the new district have the option to not implement the other states IEP if it says it wants to do evaluations before implementing the IEP?

We are in the process of revising our state complaint procedures and would like to get a pulse from this group on one of the items we received a fair amount of public comment on. We have looked at a number of states procedures and due to the great variability we would like to know: IDEA allows any person or organization to file a state complaint against a public agency, so who then is able to participate in mediation? Is it just the parent and public agency, or can a nonparent complainant also engage in mediation?

How do other states handle the IEP team meeting invitation when the state provides a facilitator? 1) District adds ‘state facilitator’ to the meeting invitation; 2) Parent adds ‘state facilitator’ when they send their signature back for the meeting; 3) Both 1 and 2; or 4) Neither 1 nor 2. How do other states handle the signature page of an IEP team meeting when the state provides a facilitator?