POLICY LETTER: July 9, 2008 to individual (personally identifiable information redacted)

July 9, 2008XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXXDear XXXXXXXXXXXXX:This letter is in response to your letter dated February 15, 2008 to Dr. Deborah J. Morrow of my staff. You raised concerns with regard to the XXXXXX Department of Education (XDOE) and its investigation of your complaint. Specifically, you asked a series of questions regarding the relationship between the XDOE and the individual with whom the XDOE contracted to investigate your complaint against the XDOE. You also questioned why the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) did not select an independent contractor to investigate your complaint against the XDOE, and raised concerns about the time limit for resolving State complaints.Under 34 CFR 300.151 through 300.153, States are responsible for adopting and implementing procedures for resolving any complaint that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 300.153, A State's responsibility to resolve State complaints is derived from the requirement that a State is responsible for ensuring that the requirements of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Part B regulations are carried out. 34 CFR 300.149(a)(1) and 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(11). States are responsible for resolving any complaint, regardless of whether the complaint alleges that the State itself, or one of the public agencies in the State, has violated a requirement of Part B. The OSEP routinely refers complaints regarding provisions of the IDEA to the relevant State educational agency (SEA), as we did in the case of your complaint. As we understand it, the XDOE elected to contract with a third party to handle the investigation of your complaint. Part B does not require States to engage an independent contractor to conduct an investigation when a complaint contains allegations against the State, although there is nothing in Part B that prohibits a State from doing so. Prior to the IDEA Amendments of 1997, the Part B regulations, at 34 CFR 300.661(d), allowed a party to a complaint the right to request that the Secretary of Education review the SEA's final decision on that complaint. That provision was removed in the Part B regulations as of May 11, 1999 and OSEP no longer reviews an SEA's final complaint decisions. Accordingly, OSEP does not have the information you request concerning the details of the contractual relationship between the XDOE aSincerely,William KnudsenActing DirectorOffice of Special Education Programscc: XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXPage 2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXJuly 9, 2008XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX XXXXXDear XXXXXXXXXXXXX:This letter is in response to your letter dated February 15, 2008 to Dr. Deborah J. Morrow of my staff. You raised concerns with regard to the XXXXXX Department of Education (XDOE) and its investigation of your complaint. Specifically, you asked a series of questions regarding the relationship between the XDOE and the individual with whom the XDOE contracted to investigate your complaint against the XDOE. You also questioned why the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) did not select an independent contractor to investigate your complaint against the XDOE, and raised concerns about the time limit for resolving State complaints.Under 34 CFR 300.151 through 300.153, States are responsible for adopting and implementing procedures for resolving any complaint that meets the requirements of 34 CFR 300.153, A State's responsibility to resolve State complaints is derived from the requirement that a State is responsible for ensuring that the requirements of Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Part B regulations are carried out. 34 CFR 300.149(a)(1) and 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(11). States are responsible for resolving any complaint, regardless of whether the complaint alleges that the State itself, or one of the public agencies in the State, has violated a requirement of Part B. The OSEP routinely refers complaints regarding provisions of the IDEA to the relevant State educational agency (SEA), as we did in the case of your complaint. As we understand it, the XDOE elected to contract with a third party to handle the investigation of your complaint. Part B does not require States to engage an independent contractor to conduct an investigation when a complaint contains allegations against the State, although there is nothing in Part B that prohibits a State from doing so. Prior to the IDEA Amendments of 1997, the Part B regulations, at 34 CFR 300.661(d), allowed a party to a complaint the right to request that the Secretary of Education review the SEA's final decision on that complaint. That provision was removed in the Part B regulations as of May 11, 1999 and OSEP no longer reviews an SEA's final complaint decisions. Accordingly, OSEP does not have the information you request concerning the details of the contractual relationship between the XDOE aSincerely,William KnudsenActing DirectorOffice of Special Education Programscc: XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXPage 2 XXXXXXXXXXXXX