Special Education Community Complaints Archive
This archive is designed to provide convenient access to selected community complaint reports related to topics about which we receive frequent questions (you’ll even find reports no longer accessible on the OSPI website). The reports are annotated, searchable, and organized to help familiarize families, teachers, and school leaders with the topics associated with special education law as well as state and federal rules & regulations.
Accommodations - alterations of environment, curriculum format, or equipment
These selected complaints relate to alterations of environment, curriculum format, or equipment as required by law.
Use Control-F to search for specific words or district names to help locate the reports you may wish to view. Click the SECC Title Links to view full reports.
SECC 15-46 (Issaquah)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for implementing the Student’s IEP in effect for the 2014-2015 school year, including providing specially designed instruction, accommodations, and modifications?
OSPI Response: District was in violation ordered to provide the Student with 20 hours of tutoring for skills related to executive functioning.
SECC 16-69 (district name redacted)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures to implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP), including providing accommodations, the Student’s FM device, and social skills group during the 2018-2019 school year?
OSPI Response: the inconsistency in the Student’s IEPs, and the documentation that the provision of the accommodation was inconsistent, OSPI finds the District in violation regarding this accommodation.
SECC 17-82 (district name redacted)
Issue: Did the District implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP) during the 2017-2018 school year, including providing a scribe and notifying the Parent and Student that there was a substitute teacher?
OSPI Response: IEP team will review and clarify the Student’s IEP accommodations, and if determined necessary, amend the Student’s IEP to include additional accommodations.
SECC 18-111 (Tacoma)
Issue: Did the District implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP) in place during the 2018-2019 school year, including providing the special education and related services, as well as accommodations?
OSPI Response: OSPI found several accommodations were not provided according to the IEP.
SECC 18-82 (North Kitsap)
Issue: Did the District implement the accommodation regarding algebra during the 2017-2018 school year?
OSPI Response: No violation found.
SECC 18-83 (Sedro-Woolley)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for implementing the Student’s individualized education program (IEP), including providing accommodations in the general education setting?
OSPI Response: Based on the documentation, OSPI finds that the District substantiated that it implemented the Student’s IEP, and specifically that it provided the Student with the accommodations listed in his IEP in the general education setting a major portion of the time.
SECC 19-12 (Bellevue)
Issue: Did the district implement the accommodations in the student’s IEP?
OSPI Response: “the documentation provided by the District indicates that the accommodations were implemented as written. In interviews with District staff, staff were able to describe how they worked with the Student in a manner consistent with the Student’s IEP, including the paraeducator who explained how she provided support to the Student. Significantly, the two incidents cited by the Parent as a basis for his complaint could not be substantiated.”
SECC 19-45 (Richland)
Issues: Did the District follow procedures to respond to the Parents’ request for the addition of accommodations and/or modifications to the IEP during the 2018-2019 school year— including requests that the Student receive accommodations and modifications to remain in Math 3?
OSPI Response: The District is in violation and will be required to review its policy for how it implements IEP accommodations and modifications in the general education setting.
SECC 19-58 (Richland)
Issue: Did the District provide appropriate accommodations and modifications for tests and assessments?
OSPI Response: No violation. The District provided documentation that the Student was regularly provided study guides and outlines.
SECC 19-64 (Evergreen)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures to implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP), including providing accommodations, the Student’s FM device, and social skills group during the 2018-2019 school year?
OSPI Response: the inconsistency in the Student’s IEPs, and the documentation that the provision of the accommodation was inconsistent, OSPI finds the District in violation regarding this accommodation.
SECC 19-65 (Federal Way)
Issue: Did the district implement the student’s IEP, including accommodations.
OSPI Response: The district failed to implement accommodations as outlined on the IEP.
SECC 19-85 (Highline)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for implementing the Student’s individualized education program (IEP), specifically accommodations related to study guides, outlines, organizers, written instructions, and visual supports during the 2019-2020 school year?
OSPI Response: OSPI will require the Student’s IEP team to meet to answer the question: what are the Student’s needs resulting from the Student’s disability in regard to assistance with math homework?
SECC 19-100 (Kennewick)
Issue: Did During the 2019-2020 school year, did the District properly implement the following portions of the Student’s Individualized Education Programs (IEPs): a. Minutes of specially designed instruction in executive functioning and social; and b. Accommodations?
OSPI Response: District ordered to conduct an IEP meeting to consider accommodations.
SECC 22-09 (Edmonds)
Issue: Since January 28, 2021, has the District followed proper procedures to implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP)?
OSPI Response: (1) OSPI finds that while there was some inconsistency with a few accommodations, that is a minor deviation and not a material failure to implement the IEP. (2)While there was some confusion around whether the Parent was revoking consent for special education services and next steps in the fall of 2021, OSPI notes that missing approximately 750-800 minutes of services represents a material failure to implement this portion of the IEP
SECC 22-26 (West Valley)
Issue: During the 2021–2022 school year, did the District materially implement the Student’s individualized education program (IEP)?
OSPI Response: OSPI found the district in violation of accommodations in general and those included in the BIP.
SECC 22-153 (Highline)
Issue: Did the District implement the accommodations in conformity with the Student’s IEP according to WAC 392-172A-03105 during the 2022–2023 school year?
OSPI Response: Based on the information provided by the Parent and the District, there was insufficient evidence to support a violation.
Amendments - formal changes or updates to a student's existing IEP
These selected complaints relate to amendments to IEPs.
Use Control-F to search for specific words or district names to help locate the reports you may wish to view. Click the SECC Title Links to view full reports.
SECC 13-67 (Grandview)
Issue: The district amended IEP’s of middle school students in order to place them in the general education setting.
OSPI Response: The record shows that the decision to amend all 34 students IEPs was not driven by the students’ educational needs, but instead by the District’s unilateral decision that all middle school student who receive special education, would benefit from attending general education math and language. Staff training and compensatory education.
SECC 18-86R (district name redacted)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for amending the Student’s secondary transition plan, course of study, and graduation requirements, based on his individual needs?
OSPI Response: No violation or corrective action.
SECC 19-45 (Richland)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures to develop the Student’s IEP during the 2018-2019 school year, including offering the Student a continuum of special education supports and services based on the Student’s needs and in the least restrictive environment?
OSPI Response: The District is in violation by making determinations about the Student’s specially designed instruction based on the high school schedule instead of on the Student’s needs.
SECC 19-58 (Richland)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for developing and/or amending the Student’s individualized education program (IEP) during the 2018-2019 school year to address any lack of progress towards measurable annual goals?
OSPI Response: The District concluded it did not adequately determine the Student’s present levels when developing the IEP, or ensure the Student’s IEP contained measurable annual goals based on the present levels in the areas of adaptive behavior, math, reading, and written expression. OSPI adopts the District’s proposal for compensatory instruction, which includes 10 hours in reading, 6 hours in written expression, 8 hours in math, and 10 hours in adaptive.
SECC 20-116 (South Kitsap)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for any changes made to the Student’s IEP for the 2020- 2021 school year, including any changes in the Student’s placement?
OSPI Response: OSPI accordingly finds the District to be in violation for not implementing the Student’s IEP because the modified learning plan does not provide the services outlined in the IEP to the greatest extent possible.
SECC 23-28 (North Thurston)
Issue: Can the student’s IEP be unilaterally changed?
OSPI Response: if a student’s IEP needs to be revised: that change should be made following communication between the IEP team members, including the Parent; the change should be based on relevant, sufficient data on the student’s needs resulting from the student’s disability.
Appropriate Instruction - individualized, evidence-based, and inclusive teaching practices.
These selected complaints relate to the provision of Appropriate Instruction.
Use Control-F to search for specific words or district names to help locate the reports you may wish to view. Click the SECC Title Links to view full reports.
SECC 13-67 (Grandview)
Issue: Can the district change the amount of SDI and the service location in the absence of an evaluation? Inclusion? Amendments?
OSPI Response: The record shows that the District conducted reevaluations in the form of assessments revisions, not based on student need, but instead to justify the District’s plan to amend student IEPs to support the service model the District decided to adopt. The record further shows that the decision to amend all 34 students IEPs was not driven by the students’ educational needs, but instead by the District’s unilateral decision that all middle school student who receive special education, would benefit from attending general education math and language arts block courses. Compensatory education ordered (pg. 19).
SECC 15-68 (Kent)
Issue: During the two general education math classes, the Student was to receive both specially designed instruction and “core” math instruction provided by the general education teacher.
OSPI Response: The District’s two math class model is a general education program designed to improve any student’s achievement in math by intensifying instructional efforts. However, this approach does not relieve the District of its obligation to provide the Student and other students who are eligible for special education with specially designed instruction to meet their unique needs. The District middle school’s math instruction model also does not satisfy the District’s obligation to provide a continuum of alternative placements for students who are eligible for special education because the instructional model available in the two math classes is applicable to any student enrolled in those classes who fits a similar academic profile (pg. 11).
SECC 17-14 (Richland)
Issue: Did the District provide Students 1-33 with specially designed instruction that was provided by, or designed and supervised by a certificated special education teacher?
OSPI Response: Other staff including general education teachers and paraeducators may assist in the provision of special education, provided that the instruction is designed and supervised by special education certificated staff. Students 2-33 did not receive specially designed instruction that was designed and supervised by a special education teacher, because in this case, special education teacher 2 did not design or supervise the student’s specially designed instruction delivered by a general education teacher or paraeducator. There were numerous instances in this complaint where paraeducators appeared to be providing specially designed instruction outside of this context.
SECC 17-18 (Richland)
Issue: Did the District provide Students 1-30 with specially designed instruction that was provided by, or designed and supervised by a certificated special education teacher?
OSPI Response: While the three IEP case managers assigned to these 120 students provided information that they monitor student progress and do communicate with the students’ general education teachers, they provided little information about how they design and supervise the students’ specially designed instruction. The high school’s currently adopted “case manager” service delivery model does not provide students with an adequate opportunity to receive specially designed instruction. Further, documentation provided in this complaint indicates that at least some of the rationale for this particular service model is that “LRE trumps specially designed instruction.” This is incorrect. While the District is not prohibited from adopting a model, such as Response to Intervention (RTI), the adoption of such a model may not be used to delay, deny, or dilute the identification or provision of specially designed instruction. District found in violation and ordered to adjust its enrollment for special education funding (pg. 74).
SECC 18-82 (North Kitsap)
Issue: Did the District implement the specially designed instruction in accordance with the Student’s IEP during 2018-2019 school year?
OSPI Response: Here, the Student’s September 2017 IEP provided for specially designed instruction in math to be provided in the general education classroom and the District’s documentation (progress reporting) indicated the Student was receiving his specially designed instruction. No corrective action.
SECC 18-94 (Mulilreo)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures regarding the need to reevaluate the Student, including in the following circumstances: • When the Parents provided input regarding the Student’s hospitalization in 2017; • When considering the removal of specially designed instruction in writing from the Student’s individualized education program (IEP); and, • When reducing the frequency of specially designed instruction?
OSPI Response: The District provided a certified substitute teacher, although they were not certified in special education. The Student’s IEP required that a certified special education teacher implement the Student’s specially designed instruction in writing. A violation is found based on the District failing to implement the Student’s IEP by not providing writing services by a certified special education teacher and not reconvening the IEP team (pg. 10).
SECC 18-98R-1 (district name redacted)
Issue: Did the district provide students 1 -16 with specially designed instruction?
OSPI Response: None of the teachers interviewed seemed to connect the students’ need for special education with their disability or that an IEP team has determined the necessary specialized instruction, but again focused on academic performance and credit recovery. Many students’ IEPs state that they should also be receiving specially designed instruction in the general education setting, which does not appear to be happening. OSPI finds a violation on the allegation of IEP development and implementation (pg. 90).
SECC 18-102 (Renton)
Issue: Did the District implement the Student’s IEPs that were in effect during the 2018-2019 school year? Student refusal to participate.
OSPI Response: District needed to consider a change of placement. Compensatory education ordered (pg. 19).
SECC 19-28 (Tacoma)
Issue: Did the parent receive Progress Monitoring?
OSPI Response: OSPI finds the District in violation. The District will be required to develop a policy or procedure to ensure parents of students placed at NPAs receive progress reporting (pg.11).
SECC 19-45 (Richland)
Issue: Did the district provide specially designed instruction?
OSPI Response: The District often confused the curriculum being provided to all students in the Student’s special education classes, and the accommodations the Student received, with specially designed instruction. The District is in violation and will be required to complete training on specially designed instruction, including what specially designed instruction is, how it differs from accommodations and modifications, and best practices for the documentation of the provision of specially designed instruction.
SECC 19-67 (Nooksak Valley)
Issue: Could the student benefit from specially designed instruction when not wearing hearing aids?
OSPI Response: The record shows that, for significant portions of the Student’s average school day, he did not wear his hearing aids. In order for the Student’s service providers to have engaged with him via total communication (verbal, sign language, PECS, proloquo, print), it would have been imperative the Student be able to hear verbal commands and communication. Compensatory education ordered.
SECC 19-74R (district name redacted)
Issue: Did the District implement the specially designed instruction in math, as required by the Student’s individualized education programs (IEPs), Did the student receive specially designed instruction in a co-teaching environment?
OSPI Response: The statement provided by the special education teacher stated the Student “worked on her specially-designed instruction in math in the resource room setting;” however, based on the descriptions and other documentation, it seemed the resource room often functioned more (Citizen Complaint No. 19-74) Page 18 of 23 as a study hall type setting. While instruction in these areas may have enabled the Student to better benefit from specially designed instruction, the availability of such instruction is not a substitute for the actual provision of specially designed instruction in math. Further, the provision of accommodations—while important—is also not a substitute for specially designed instruction. Compensatory education ordered (pg. 18).
SECC 19-77 (Northshore)
Issue: When does the district have to make up missed specially designed instruction?
OSPI Response: Ordered compensatory education to make up for missed SDI (pgs. 23-26).
SECC 23-32 (West Valley)
Issue: Has the Student’s individualized education program (IEP) been implemented properly, including related services. Specially designed instruction in general education?
OSPI Response: For the 2022-2023 school year, the District acknowledges that it did not provide the Student with specially designed instruction (“SDI”) in the areas of Basic Reading Skills, (Community Complaint No. 23-32) (pg. 10) the District acknowledges that it did not provide the Student with specially designed instruction (“SDI”). As a corrective action for this violation, the District proposes to provide the Student with 4,975 minutes of compensatory education in the areas of Basic Reading Skills (615 minutes), Reading Comprehension (624 minutes), Reading Fluency (624 minutes), Written Expression (624 minutes), Math Calculation (1,248 minutes), and Math Problem Solving (1,240 minutes).
Appropriate Placement - in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)
These selected complaints relate to placement of students.
Use Control-F to search for specific words or district names to help locate the reports you may wish to view. Click the SECC Title Links to view full reports.
SECC 14-04 (Vancouver)
Issue: The Complainant alleged that by giving a directive restricting placement options, the District violated procedures for allowing IEP teams to make placement decisions on behalf of the Students.
OSPI Response: The District’s internal placement procedures, including predetermining placement options based on a disability category, evaluation scores, or a teacher’s potential overload status, violated procedures under the IDEA (pg.9).
SECC 14-40 (Seattle)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for determining the Student’s placement?
OSPI Response: The District did not follow procedures for determining the Student’s placement. The District concedes that it failed to conduct an evaluation prior to changing the Student’s placement. Orders new IEP (pg. 13).
SECC 15-82 (Vancouver)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for determining the Student’s placement during the 2015-2016 school year?
OSPI Response: The District changed the Student’s placement to a home tutoring placement and significantly reduced the amount of specially designed instruction the Student would receive without conducting a reevaluation and without any documentation to support such a significant change in services. The District will provide compensatory services to address the services the Student was denied during the time period he received home tutoring (pg. 24).
SECC 16-49 (Seattle)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for determining the Student’s placement?
OSPI Response: Prior to making a significant change in a student’s placement, the District must first conduct a reevaluation (pg. 42).
SECC 16-71 (Olympia)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for determining student placement during the 2015-2016 school year? Para- support? Inclusion?
OSPI Response: The teacher stated that she felt like she was “stuck between a rock and a hard place in providing appropriate services” for her students, as she had to choose between providing integration support in general education settings and academic instruction in DLC classroom 2. The teacher stated that both of these service delivery strategies were invaluable to the success of the students, and that when she chose inclusion supports, students in DLC classroom 2 had reduced paraeducator and teacher time for specially designed instruction (pg. 15). T he District failed to follow procedures for responding to the Complainants’ request for paraeducator support for Student A. An IEP team, not a school district, is responsible for determining if a student requires additional services (pg. 24). While districts can adopt service delivery strategies and systems, the adoption of such strategies and systems cannot compromise the implementation of a properly formulated IEP (pg. 25).
SECC 17-14 (Richland)
Issue: If Students 1-33’s placement was changed during the 2016-2017 school year, did the District follow procedures for changing the Students’ placements?
OSPI Response: A school may not make a significant change in a student with disabilities placement without a reevaluation. Placement is not determined based on a district policy or the adoption of a general education model such as Response to Intervention. Here, the District’s policy of designating on IEPs that students would receive instruction in a general education setting, when the students may in fact more appropriately receive those services in a special education setting, is contrary to the required procedures for determining placement and the provision of services in a full continuum of options that are individually determined (pg. 33).
SECC 17-87 (Medical Lake)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for changing placement?
OSPI Response: The District did not conduct a reevaluation prior to changing Student A’s placement. The District failed to follow procedures for changing Student A’s placement in February 2017 (pg. 25).
SECC 18-82 (North Kitsap)
Issue: Did the District predetermine the Student’s placement at the June 2018 IEP meeting?
OSPI Response: The complaint stated the Parent “arrived at the June 18, 2018 IEP meeting with a predetermined schedule placement for child’s IEP.” There can be no predetermination if no decision was made, and even if a decision about the Student’s class schedule was made, it was not a special education issue since it did not affect the implementation of special education services or placement (pg. 5).
SECC 18-86R (district name redacted)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for determining the Student’s placement for the 2018-2019 school year?
OSPI Response: The Student’s IEP team properly considered a continuum of placements and thoroughly discussed the implications of changing the Student’s LRE. OSPI finds no violation. The District followed all the procedures to determine the Student’s placement and LRE (pg. 18).
SECC 18-98R (district name redacted)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for determining and/or changing the placement of students eligible for special education?
OSPI Response: Each school district shall ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the special education and related services needs of students (pg. 19). The change in LRE from zero to 97% may represent a significant change in placement and there is no indication that the Student’s IEP team discussed this potential change in placement, and considered whether a reevaluation was necessary for Student 1 to reassess his educational needs before developing a new IEP (pg. 21). OSPI finds a violation based on the fact that the District failed to follow placement procedures.
SECC 18-109 (Central Kitsap)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures for developing the Student’s individualized education program (IEP), including addressing the Student’s placement and addressing the Parents’ request for physical outlets?
OSPI Response: The District failed to follow IEP procedures when it failed to document changes of placement, failed to have required IEP team members at meetings where placement decisions were made, and failed to document agreed upon changes in the IEP or prior written notices. A violation is found.
SECC 19-45 (Richland)
Issue: Did the District offer the Student a continuum of special education supports and services based on the Student’s needs and in the least restrictive environment?
OSPI Response: Special education placement is based on a student’s unique, disability-related needs, not determined based on a student’s schedule or the availability of a particular program. An IEP must accurately reflect the IEP team’s placement decision, and the IEP team must consider a full continuum of placement options when making this decision. Found the district in violation and ordered a new IEP (pg. 26).
SECC 22-90R (district name redacted)
Issue: Did the District develop an appropriate individualized education program (IEP) for the Student, including but not limited to consideration of the following: a. Addressing concerns about lack of progress or regression, particularly in behavior and social skills; b. Considering development of a behavioral intervention plan (BIP); c. Developing appropriate goals for the Student; (Community Complaint No. 22-90) Page 2 of 31 d. Considering the Student’s least restrictive environment and placement given Parent requests to increase the Student’s time in the general education setting;
OSPI Response: The Student’s IEP team discussed and made decisions based on the current data, or determined more data was needed, the team conducted an FBA and developed a BIP, the team added a 1:1 paraeducator to the Student’s IEP, and the team determined it would be beneficial to gradually increase the Student’s time in general education given new supports. OSPI finds no violation (pg. 23).
SECC 22-126R (district name redacted)
Issue: Did the district follow placement procedures for determining the student’s placement?
OSPI Response: No violation. OSPI strongly recommends the Student’s IEP team schedule an IEP meeting or meetings to check-in, review the Student’s progress, and discuss his placement as the number of classes he attends increases (pg 7).
SECC 23-02 (Federal Way)
Issue: Did the District follow procedures to sufficiently evaluate the Student’s eligibility for special education services, including considering the Student’s social emotional and behavioral needs?
OSPI Response: The Student’s evaluation report indicated the Student had a need in academic areas in addition to behavior and communication; thus, all these areas should have been included in the Student’s IEP.
Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP)
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Discipline
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Educational Benefit
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
EDY
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Evaluation
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Excusal
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Functional Behavioral Analysis (FBA)
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Health and Safety
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Individualized Education Program (IEP) Team
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Isolation and Restraint
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Limited English Proficiency
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Progress Monitoring
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Native Language Interpreters
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Para-Educators
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Parent Participation
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Physical Education
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Prior Written Notice
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Referral
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Related Services
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Request for IEP meeting
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Response to Intervention
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Staff Qualifications
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Transfer
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Transition Services
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
Union Contract
Your content goes here. Edit or remove this text inline or in the module Content settings. You can also style every aspect of this content in the module Design settings and even apply custom CSS to this text in the module Advanced settings.
OSPI Community Complaints
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) fulfills the requirements of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), ensuring that all children with disabilities have access to a free appropriate public education. As such, OSPI is also required to provide procedures for the submission and investigation of community complaints. (CLICK HERE for details)