Hello Dr. Cardona and Ms. Truitt,
Good morning.

My wife and I are parents to a child with an IEP at an elementary public school in Wake county in North Carolina. Firstly, we would like to congratulate you both on your appointments this year -- Dr. Cardona, as Secretary of Education, and Ms. Truitt, as Superintendent at North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NC DPI). Few leaders in our nation and state's public education history have inherited as important a role as you have during a time more challenging than now. We wish you the very best as you serve to protect and strengthen one of America's most important foundations i.e. our public schools. We hope that you will be open to input from all stakeholders, including parents, so that together we can leave this foundation in a better place than we were left with, for our current and future generations.

Today, my wife and I are writing to share the sad news that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has lost her soul, shortly after her 45th anniversary. As a result IDEA now continues to live on paper alone. So we have written IDEA a letter to grieve her loss. We would appreciate your taking a few minutes to read our letter further below.

Context:
Our sincere hope was that your offices would have helped avoid this tragic outcome. Instead we are at this crossroads because the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has yet to respond to our three questions from Nov 30, 2020 about the NC DPI processing of our State complaint, more than six months later now, and with no future date in sight. OSEP and NC DPI have therefore failed to save IDEA's soul, i.e. the legal validity of the Prior Written Notice (PWN) content -- despite the undeniable evidence in our complaint about our school district i.e. Wake County Public School System's (WCPSS) practice of consistently undermining the same.

Sadly the OSEP Monitoring and State Improvement Planning (MSIP) division had been involved and aware ever since the first IDEA violation. The reality is that NC DPI state complaint procedures, which are supposed to be a "powerful tool" in service of students with disabilities as explained in the Federal Register, have become frail at protecting the core of IDEA. Why is that? Because although NC DPI's complaint investigation follows the letter of the law, it fails her spirit by following just the minimum procedures, contrary to the expectations in the Federal Register, and thereby absolves school districts of their responsibility under the law. And while this sad story is true under the OSEP MSIP division for North Carolina, this could conceivably be the case for any other state, and thereby be affecting all students with disabilities in the United States.

Sad to say that OSEP, NC DPI and WCPSS leadership have together failed IDEA at multiple levels:
- most of all, failed my son who is entitled to an appropriately ambitious education
- failed his teachers, therapists and staff who work with him on a day-to-day basis
- failed so many people who worked so long to bring us to IDEA's 45th anniversary, and
- failed President Joe Biden, whose website https://joebiden.com/disabilities/ says:

"Throughout his career, Biden has fought for the rights and opportunities of people with disabilities—working to pass anti-discrimination protections in the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the original Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 1975, and the Affordable Care Act in 2010. As President, Biden will make sure these protections are fully enforced and that people with disabilities have a voice in policy development and implementation."

Our letter to IDEA to grieve her loss:

"Dear IDEA,
My wife and I are writing to share our sincere condolences for losing your soul. Sadly, your loss began well before COVID-19. But let me share this story from the beginning.

Since early 2019, we were inspired when we read, for the first time, your Section 1400(c)(1) wherein the U.S. Congress had found that:
"Disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to participate in or contribute to society. Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy. of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities," and that,
"Almost 30 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by having high expectations for such children.

It is natural then that our vision statement in our son's IEP set high expectations of his public education. Please feel free to read our attached vision at leisure. For that matter, we were inspired by the WCPSS brand campaign i.e. "What Starts Here Changes Everything," designed to unify and engage the system’s diverse range of stakeholders to provide that education for all students. We were unaware, however, that we would have to sacrifice our family time and invest inordinate hours including many late nights and weekends -- at the expense of my health -- to uphold those high expectations by advocating for our son's rights at every IEP meeting during the 2019-2020 school year, and as early as first grade. After all, we expected WCPSS would provide the appropriately ambitious education that our son is entitled to by you and NC policies.

Eventually, on September 21, 2020, we respectfully filed a state complaint with NC DPI about multiple violations by WCPSS since October 2019. We explained that the root cause stems from WCPSS Special Education Services (SES) consistently undermining the legal validity of the PWN content, which should have been fully compliant with your and NC policies. We further requested NC DPI to investigate if this root cause were a systemic practice in WCPSS, given the seriousness of the issue. Our request was supported by the OSEP memo on Dispute Resolution procedures, along with the commentary to the regulations published in the Federal Register. And yes, OSEP has confirmed to us, contrary to NC DPI's belief, that the scope of possible state complaints includes those that allege systemic noncompliance by a public agency of having a practice applicable to a group of children that is inconsistent with Part B or the Part B regulations, and wherein the complaint is supported by naming one child. We did clarify however, that we were filing our complaint with the spirit and intent of improving outcomes for our son, and for all students with disabilities in WCPSS. And that we value the efforts, sacrifice and commitment by many educators, but have come to believe that there is a significant need and opportunity for improvement. You see, at the end of the day we consider our son's school a valued partner in developing a foundation for his future, being a magnet school focused on nurturing gifts and talents. It is natural then that we would hope for that partnership to improve in all aspects of our son's education and development.

But sadly the NC DPI Director chose to follow just the minimum procedures in the state investigation, despite the undeniable evidence in our complaint and thereby rendered the state complaint procedures frail at protecting the core of IDEA. "But wait, aren't the state complaint procedures meant to be a 'powerful tool' in service of students with disabilities, as explained in the Federal Register?" you ask? You are right. I know that must have hurt. A lot. So on November 30, 2020, we requested the Associate Division Director at OSEP, who is the MSIP division team lead for NC to help with a written response to three key questions related to your expectations of state complaint procedures. We waited patiently for the written response from OSEP, while including a gentle reminder. As a last resort, on January 31, 2021 we requested our Congresswoman Deborah Ross, who serves the 2nd district of NC, for help with OSEP. Sadly, OSEP has yet to respond to our three questions from November 30, 2020, more than six months later now and with no future date in sight. You should read our November 30, 2020 email below though to understand how OSEP had been involved and aware since the first IDEA violation. My wife and I have now accepted the reality of this sad situation. We are bereft of all hope as we mourn your loss; 45 years is a relatively young age, after all. I am truly sorry.

But how did we get to this point, you ask? Well let's see: firstly, we acknowledge that partnerships, based on mutual trust, result in positive outcomes for everyone. Since day one, we embraced our parental responsibilities while building partnerships with our son's school in any way possible -- by supporting school events, fundraisers, staff appreciation week, classroom activities, and spending many months on founding a "Special education inclusion committee" for the PTA to enhance the inclusion experience for all children -- an effort that our school principal appreciated. But at the same time, we stayed vigilant to protect your soul, i.e. the legal validity of the PWN content, after every IEP meeting by requesting adequate time to review the content before the PWN is implemented. Many parents are not aware about NC DPI training that explains that the PWN allows for such "processing time" to review the PWN and seek resolution if they disagreed with the school's decision.

But WCPSS SES would often not clarify our questions about the PWN adequately, even though providing legally valid clarification could have helped avoid your and NC policy violations; this despite NC DPI training that the PWN is one of the most important parental rights in special education. And what practical options are parents left with when some of the PWN content i.e. a legal document, is written merely to inform, rather than be in strict compliance with state and federal laws? Please let that sink in for a moment. I hear you. This is unconscionable. And sadly, as if that weren't tragic enough, WCPSS SES has most recently started to undermine the PWN even further. e.g. Just last week, WCPSS SES pushed to enforce the implementation date to be just one day after the PWN date, with no good reason, and were thereby willfully violating state and federal laws by impeding our meaningful parental participation. And our school principal refused our request for additional time with the justification that "decisions that are made in the meeting today can be reasonably implemented the day after parents are provided a copy of the Prior Written Notice", even though the decision had a compliance deadline more than two months later in August.

Can I share an example of undermining the PWN content, you ask? Well let's see: back in October 2019, WCPSS SES refused our request for an Independent Evaluation (IEE) following an evaluation report. The PWN claimed that we need to complete the re-evaluation process, including eligibility etermination, and only after then we may request the IEE if we were still not satisfied. The only problem was that WCPSS SES would not clarify our questions about the policy to support this decision. After all, the stated justification doesn't exist in the IEE section of the Parent Rights handbook. Yes, the same handbook that WCPSS SES shares with us diligently. But let us pause to think about an analogy for a moment: writing an IEP is like building a house. Our understanding is that evaluations help us lay a foundation. Sometimes though, the evaluator may uncover a valid reason to question some part of the foundation. That is wonderful, actually, because it means we can take a second look, and build a stronger foundation possibly, to help the IEP team build an appropriate house. But should we first plan for and start building the framing, the walls, the roof, the backyard and the fence, and then re-assess the foundation perhaps? Or should we consider re-assessing the foundation before going too far along? Sounds logical, maybe? But instead, the WCPSS Assistant Superintendent of SES insisted, with emphasis, on moving on without reconsideration for the foundation at that point. It didn't matter that the PWN content i.e. a legal document, was out of compliance. It is worth remembering the WCPSS brand campaign though, namely that "What Starts Here Changes Everything". Sadly, that was the first time your soul was hurt.

Now in all fairness, we understand that every IEP situation is unique. And it is human for WCPSS SES to make "errors" being a large school district, and with limited resources perhaps. We respect that. And that's why it's important to partner with parents, while respecting their legitimate questions about the PWN content, and to be open to possible corrections with a sense of humility because we are all human. But along the way, my wife and I continued to find it difficult to step back from the ongoing violations, as it is only fair procedures, effectively administered and in full compliance with state and federal laws that tend to produce fair results, which is an appropriately ambitious education as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Endrew F. v. Douglas RE-1 (2017) decision.

So where is the accountability, you ask? Good question. You see, we've created a hierarchy with OSEP at the top, then NC DPI, then WCPSS SES, then principals, then teachers/therapists/staff and finally students with disabilities (and parents). It's like a top-down organization chart in any large enterprise. And we devolved responsibility to the school district level, but without commensurate oversight at the state level to ensure school district accountability that eliminates unconscionable PWN practices. The tragic outcome is that although our state's complaint investigation follows the letter of the law, it fails her spirit by following just the minimum procedures, contrary to the expectations in the Federal Register, and thereby absolves school districts of their responsibility under the law. And while this sad story is true in North Carolina, this could conceivably be the case in any other state, and thereby be affecting all students with disabilities in the U.S. entitled to an appropriately ambitious public education as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark Endrew F. v. Douglas RE-1 (2017) decision. Such an outcome has far reaching implications for our current and future generations. Sadly, history will remember us as the generation that enabled such a tragic future.

However, let us try a different perspective for a change: take that top-down organization chart and flip it upside down. Done? Good. Now with all due respect -- see those people at the top, the ones who dedicate their lives in service of our students for those educational outcomes that are an essential element of our national policy? Our OSEP, NC DPI and WCPSS SES leadership who are entrusted to serve our country's public schools works for those people, not the other way around. And it is our leadership's responsibility to ensure those people at the top can truly thrive, because if a leader isn't a servant who inspires by example, then he/she is no leader at all. And while our current leadership may intend for them to thrive, the sad reality is that we are falling far short of that aspiration today.

Now here we are mourning your loss today. We may need a memorial so all families can pay their respects to your 45-year legacy. And we have a responsibility to understand how this is a teachable moment for everyone to protect and strengthen our public schools, so that together we can leave one of America's most important foundations in a better place than we were left with, for our current and future generations. So we pray for grace to return to the light of day, by restoring the kind of leadership that our current and future generation of students with disabilities not only deserve, but that we desperately need for our national policy today, so that the United States may shine as a beacon of hope for the rest of the world tomorrow. And we look forward to that light of day, "for there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it, If only we are brave enough to be it," as we learned in the poem "The Hill We Climb" at the Presidential inauguration in January 2021.

I would like to leave you with a renewed sense of hope from then President-elect Joe Biden's speech on November 7, 2020. Until we meet again: #RIP-IDEA-1975-2021 #TheNextRightThing

From https://joebiden.com/presidency-for-all-americans/#
"I’ve always believed we can define America in one word: Possibilities. That in America everyone should be given the opportunity to go as far as their dreams and God-given ability will take them. You see, I believe in the possibility of this country. We’re always looking ahead. Ahead to an America that never leaves anyone behind. Ahead to an America that never gives up, never gives in. This is a great nation. And we are a good people. This is the United States of America. And there has never been anything we haven’t been able to do when we’ve done it together."

Best,
Priti Daswani and Anil Daswani

Hello Mr. Schneer and Ms. Fairfax,
Good morning. I hope this email finds you well.

I am writing to request clarification on three important questions about IDEA CFR 300.152 at https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/b/b/300.152 My questions hold special significance on the 45th anniversary of IDEA today, as you will see by the end of reading my email.

Per CFR 300.152
"(a) Time limit; minimum procedures. Each SEA must include in its complaint procedures a time limit of 60 days after a
complaint is filed under §300.153 to—
...
(4) Review all relevant information and make an independent determination as to whether the public agency is violating a requirement of Part B of the Act or of this part; and
(5) Issue a written decision to the complainant that addresses each allegation in the complaint and contains—
(i) Findings of fact and conclusions; and
(ii) The reasons for the SEA’s final decision."

Question #1:
When addressing each allegation in the complaint, in order to comply with CFR 300.152:
a) should the SEA determine whether the public agency has adhered to the requirements of Part B or part B regulations,
OR

b) should the SEA determine whether the public agency has adhered to the requirements of part B or part B regulations, and whether the public agency has made legally valid or invalid decisions within those requirements -- for the SEA to then be able to meet its full legal obligations under CFR 300.151(b) and CFR 300.600?

Additional context:
We are in receipt of NC Department of Public Instruction (NC DPI) letter & final report dated Nov 20, 2020 in response to our NC State complaint filed on Sep 21, 2020. I have attached a PDF copy of NC DPI letter & final report, and our state complaint for reference.

Page 3 of the NC DPI report states:
"WCPSS is not in violation of the Policies regarding Prior Written Notice (PWN) between October 2019 through March 2020, including implementation date."

However, NC DPI’s analysis to support this conclusion assessed just the format of required content in the PWN, but did not assess the legal validity of the actual PWN content. For example, your own office had to contact NC DPI on two occasions when WCPSS written decisions were out of compliance in Fall 2019.

As another example, the March 2020 PWN refused our parent request by claiming that "IEP expires" on a given date. WCPSS Assistant Superintendent for Special Education Services (SES) then failed to point to any IDEA or NC DPI policy, rules or regulations on "IEP expiration" in her response email (with NC DPI Director and NC DPI Section Chief for Policy on cc). Evidence is in pages 35, 36 of our complaint.

Implications:
We believe that NC DPI's report, which did not assess the legal validity of the PWN content:

a) significantly limits NC DPI’s ability to meet SEA's full legal obligations under CFR 300.151(b) and CFR 300.600, and
b) undermines NC DPI's obligation to determine whether the public agency has a practice inconsistent with part B or part B regulations, as I understand from the OSEP memo 13-08 dated Jul 23, 2013 at
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/memosdcltrs/acccombinedosersdisputeresolutionqafinalmemo-7-23-13.pdf

Question #2:
NC DPI’s report has stated analysis and conclusion about the PWN. But the report has not denied our specific allegations about the public agency's practice of undermining the legal validity of the PWN content, nor issued corrective action for the same. Is the NC DPI report in compliance with CFR 300.152, and has NC DPI met its full legal obligations under CFR 300.151(b) and CFR 300.600?

Additional context:
We had alleged the following in our NC State complaint:

"The root cause of these issues stems from WCPSS consistently undermining the legal validity of the Prior Written Notice (PWN) content, which should have been fully compliant with IDEA and NC policies. Between October 2019 and March 2020, WCPSS central office sent us PWNs after IEP meetings with the following issues:

i. refusals with invalid justification followed by misquoting NC policy,
-- Note: NC DPI did not deny this specific allegation in the report. Evidence is in pages 8, 9 of our complaint.
ii. refusals with invalid justification despite sharing federal guidance,
-- Note: NC DPI did not deny this specific allegation in the report. Evidence is in page 11 of our complaint.
iii. misleading statements about lack of evidence to suspect additional disabilities
-- Note: NC DPI did not deny this specific allegation in the report. Evidence is in pages 14, 15 of our complaint.
iv. misrepresenting parental differences as team decisions
-- Note: NC DPI did not deny this specific allegation in the report. Evidence is in page 34 of our complaint.
v. outright falsehoods in some instances
-- Note: NC DPI did not deny this specific allegation in the report. Evidence is in pages 33, 34 of our complaint.
vi. refusal to add clarification despite instructions in the IEP form, and
-- Note: NC DPI did not deny this specific allegation in the report. Evidence is in page 25 of our complaint.
vii. enforcing an implementation date, without valid justification, that denied us parents reasonable time to review and seek corrections to the PWN, and thereby denied meaningful parental participation"
-- Note: NC DPI did not deny the "without valid justification" part of this allegation in the report. Evidence is in pages 35, 36 of our complaint. The PWN claimed that "IEP expires" on a given date. WCPSS Assistant Superintendent for SES then failed to point me to any IDEA and NC DPI policy, rules or regulations on "IEP expiration" in her response email (with NC DPI Director and NC DPI Section Chief for Policy on cc).

Page 3 of NC DPI's report then concludes:
"WCPSS is not in violation of the Policies regarding Prior Written Notice (PWN) between October 2019 through March 2020, including implementation date."

Implications:

We believe that NC DPI's report, which did not deny our specific allegations about the public agency's practice of undermining the legal validity of the PWN content, has five key issues:

1) the report undermined the State Complaint procedures, despite the undeniable evidence:

The State Complaint procedures are meant to provide NC DPI with a powerful tool in service of children with disabilities, to identify and correct noncompliance with part B or Part B regulations, as documented in the commentary to the regulations in the Federal Register /Vol. 71, No. 156 /Monday, August 14, 2006 /Rules and Regulations. Here is the relevant text:

"Adoption of State Complaint Procedures (§ 300.151)
...
We believe the broad scope of the State complaint procedures, as permitted in the regulations, is critical to each State’s exercise of its general supervision responsibilities. The complaint procedures provide parents, organizations, and other individuals with an important means of ensuring that the educational needs of children with disabilities are met and provide the SEA with a powerful tool to identify and correct noncompliance with Part B of the Act or of part 300."

We noted the word "minimum" in "Sec. 300.152 Minimum State complaint procedures". However, we also believe that:

a) NC DPI, in choosing the limit beyond the minimum, should consider the impact on its ability to ensure LEA compliance as noted in the commentary to the federal regulations. Here is the relevant text:
"We believe placing limits on the scope of the State complaint system, as suggested by the commenters, would diminish the SEA’s ability to ensure its LEAs are in compliance with Part B of the Act and its implementing regulations, and may result in an increase in the number of due process complaints filed and the number of due process hearings held."

b) and that NC DPI, in choosing the limit beyond the minimum, should have given due consideration to our complaint, which was well organized with specific clarity to simplify NC DPI's investigation to the greatest extent possible.

2) the report fails to meet the expectations that NC DPI determine the legal validity of the public agency's decision:

The commentary to the regulations in the Federal Register says that the SEA should determine whether the public agency has followed the required procedures, and also determine whether the public agency has reached a decision that is consistent with the requirements in part B of the Act in light of my son's individual abilities and needs. In short, NC DPI should have assessed both the format of required content in the PWN and the legal validity of the actual PWN content. Here is the relevant text:

"Adoption of State Complaint Procedures (§ 300.151)
...
We believe that an SEA, in resolving a complaint challenging the appropriateness of a child’s educational program or services or the provision of FAPE, should not only determine whether the public agency has followed the required procedures to reach that determination, but also whether the public agency has reached a decision that is consistent with the requirements in Part B of the Act in light of the individual child’s abilities and needs. Thus, the SEA may need to review the evaluation data in the child’s record, or any additional data provided by the parties to the complaint, and the explanation included in the public agency’s notice to the parent as to why the agency made the determination regarding the child’s educational program or services. If necessary, the SEA may need to interview appropriate individuals, to determine whether the agency followed procedures and applied standards that are consistent with State standards, including the requirements of Part B of the Act, and whether the determination made by the public agency is consistent with those standards and supported by the data."

3) the report failed to satisfy NC DPI's obligation, as I understand from the OSEP memo 13-08, to determine whether the public agency has a practice inconsistent with part B or part B regulations,

4) the report failed to satisfy NC DPI's full legal obligations under CFR 300.151(b) by not issuing adequate corrective action, and appropriate future provision of services for all children with disabilities, and legal obligations under CFR 300.600, and

5) the report sets the expectation, as Corrective Action, to provide by March 1, 2021 either an update on the IEEs or a copy of a PWN indicating the IEP Team, including the parents, reviewed the IEE reports during an IEP meeting. Further, if evaluations have not been completed and reviewed due to COVID-19 restrictions and/or the parent’s decision not to complete evaluations until able to do so safely face to face, the due date to provide all documentation i.e. June 1, 2021 may be extended by the complaint investigator. However, we want to ensure that our IEP team does not make any decisions about eligibility determination for my son’s IEP until we have completed and reviewed the IEE results as a team. But the report leaves the possibility open that the due date may not be extended.

Question #3:
What does your office recommend as a next step in this situation?

In closing:
My wife and I believe that our three important questions go to the very heart of IDEA on its 45th anniversary today. Our sincere hope is that your office will help answer our questions with requisite due diligence. We are requesting your written email response please. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Best,
Anil Daswani and Priti Daswani

Hello Dr. Cardona,
Good afternoon.

My wife and I are writing to share an update to our earlier email about our letter to IDEA on June 9, 2021 included below for reference. In our letter, we had proposed setting up a memorial so all families can pay their respects to IDEA's 45-year legacy. Please see the memorial at https://www.rip-idea.info

Meanwhile:
1. We shared a petition to help restore the soul of IDEA at our memorial website addressed to you at https://www.change.org/please-help-restore-the-soul-of-IDEA

Our petition states:
"You raised our hopes in March by posting on Twitter that: “For too many students, public education in America has been a flor palida: a wilted rose, neglected, in need of care. We must be the master gardeners who cultivate it, who work every day to preserve its beauty and its purpose.” We urge you, as one of the master gardeners, to help restore the soul of IDEA if you can."

Our petition has been signed by many people. We hope you will consider their request as well.

2. Ms. Lynne Fairfax from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) emailed us on June 10, 2021 with the following:
“I will take a closer look at your e-mail from November 30, 2020 to determine an appropriate response to your questions, and I will be back in touch as soon possible.”

We look forward to Ms. Fairfax’s response. It is worth noting that OSEP was involved and aware since the first IDEA violation in Oct 2019. Meanwhile, OSEP has been reviewing our Nov 30, 2020 email for more than seven months now. We expect that OSEP (as “the agency”) will fulfill, rather than delay, their review and legal obligation within the 2 year timeline by Oct 2021. Please refer to https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute-chapter-33/subchapter-ii/1415/f In particular,

“A parent or agency shall request an impartial due process hearing within 2 years of the date the parent or agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint.”

But if OSEP does not, then we can only conclude that OSEP willfully condones both North Carolina Department of Public Instruction’s state complaint procedures that fail the Federal Register expectations, and Wake County Public School System’s PWN practices that violate state and federal laws. OSEP would then be equally responsible, and therefore liable for denying current and future generations of students with disabilities their legal right to FAPE. In short, the U.S. Department of Education will have not only failed to save our flor palida, but also failed the rest of the world who looks to the U.S. as a beacon of hope for their students with disabilities.

3. Lastly, we have written a part 2 letter to IDEA about IDEA and NC policy violations at our June 28, 2021 IEP meeting. We have shared the letter with Ms. Lynne Fairfax for OSEP’s reference.

In closing:
My wife and I thank you for your time and consideration. And we expect -- as much as we hope you also expect -- that OSEP will live up to your own guidance to be that “master gardener” by fulfilling their legal obligation towards current and future generations of students with disabilities. We will share this email for the benefit of all families at our memorial website as well.

Best,
Priti Daswani and Anil Daswani

Hello Dr. Cardona,
Good morning.

My wife and I are writing to share a final update about our heartfelt letter to IDEA that we first shared with you on June 9, 2021. We would appreciate your taking a few minutes to review this final update, in the hopes that you may help save our flor pálida i.e. our public education in America, so that we may leave it in a better place than we were left with for our current and future generations of students with disabilities.

Context:
In our last email on Jul 13, 2021, we shared our expectation that the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) will live up to your own guidance on Twitter to be that "master gardener" to save our flor pálida. We are saddened to share our tragic conclusion that OSEP can never save our flor pálida. Why? Here is why.

1. The open question about OSEP's expectations:

Ms. Lynne Fairfax from the OSEP Monitoring and State Improvement Planning (MSIP) Division finally emailed us -- almost eight months later -- a response to our three questions from our Nov 30, 2020 email on Jul 20, 2021. We are grateful for the same. Ms. Fairfax shared the following, in part, in response to our 2nd question:

"It is the State’s responsibility to conduct an investigation, even when the complaint alleges that the State has violated a requirement of Part B."

We then requested Ms. Fairfax to please point us to the IDEA statute or regulations that confirms her response. Ms. Fairfax replied with the following on Jul 28, 2021:

"Please see 34 C.F.R. 300.149 regarding State Educational Agency responsibility for general supervision under IDEA at:
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=6dcb6d0f6148f8b5754ca7f2956d1efa&mc=true&node=se34.2.300_1149&rgn=div8."

However we could not find in 34 C.F.R. 300.149 the text that confirms the State's responsibility to conduct an investigation under the specific condition i.e. "even when the complaint alleges that the State has violated a requirement of Part B." And we could not find any commentary in the Federal register that may confirm the same.

So unless you can help us confirm otherwise, OSEP has left us with an open question that is time sensitive: how can OSEP justify that our State investigate its own decision -- a clear conflict of interest -- despite OSEP being involved in and aware since the first IDEA violation in this case?

2. Lack of support for OSEP's position:

Meanwhile, OSEP Q&A at https://sites.ed.gov/idea/idea-files/osep-memo-and-qa-on-dispute-resolution/ Q B-12 answers the question: “How does an SEA resolve a complaint against itself?" -- which is a questionable proposition to begin with, due to the inherent conflict of interest. As part of the question, OSEP claims:

"Under 34 CFR §300.33, the term “public agency” includes the SEA. Therefore, an SEA must resolve a complaint alleging that the SEA (a public agency) has violated a requirement of Part B or the Part B regulations."

However we could not find any commentary in the Federal Register that supports this absurd causation, and which only results in a situation similar to -- and as conflicted as -- having to return to the same doctor for a second opinion. On the contrary, the commentary in the Federal Register clearly explains that the objective of State complaints is for SEA's oversight of LEA compliance -- and not SEA's oversight of SEA compliance -- by stating the following:

"We believe placing limits on the scope of the State complaint system, as suggested by the commenters, would diminish the SEA’s ability to ensure its LEAs are in compliance with Part B of the Act and its implementing regulations, and may result in an increase in the number of due process complaints filed and the number of due process hearings held."

Conclusion:
We therefore conclude, unless you can help us confirm otherwise, that OSEP's claim that our State investigate its own decision -- a clear conflict of interest -- is an administrative convenience at best, despite OSEP being involved in and aware since the first IDEA violation in this case. Please note that we had requested investigating the unconscionable PWN practice as being systemic in our school district, given the seriousness of the issue.

In closing:
IDEA has a strong system of oversight but OSEP and the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NC DPI) have together created an alternate system of oversight with no practical accountability. How? Because NC DPI implements just the minimum State complaint procedures, contrary to expectations in the Federal Register. And because OSEP has given up responsibility by claiming, without a substantiated explanation, that NC DPI investigate its own decision -- a clear conflict of interest -- despite OSEP being involved in and aware since the first IDEA violation in this case. As a result, OSEP and NC DPI are willfully absolving our school district of their responsibility under the law, and also enabling our school district to continue their unconscionable PWN practice that violates state and federal laws. We are saddened to share that we can never save our flor pálida in this situation. The U.S. Department of Education and NC DPI has thus failed our current and future generations of students with disabilities.

We will share this final email for the benefit of current and future generations of families at our memorial website at https://www.rip-idea.info where they may pay their respects to IDEA's 45-year legacy by continuing to sign our petition requesting you to restore the soul of IDEA at https://www.change.org/please-help-restore-the-soul-of-IDEA

Best,
Priti Daswani and Anil Daswani

Hello Dr. Cardona,
Good morning.

My wife and I are parents to a child with an IEP at an elementary public school in Wake county in North Carolina. We are grateful for your service, and wish you the best as you continue to serve all students with disabilities, their families, their communities and our nation.

In June 2021, we emailed you to share the sad news that IDEA had lost her soul, shortly after her 45th anniversary. As a result IDEA now continues to live on paper alone. We had included a letter to IDEA to grieve her loss, available at our memorial website for IDEA at https://www.rip-idea.info

Today, my wife and I are writing to share the tragic news that we tried to restore IDEA's soul but failed because the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NC DPI) continues to fail our state without requisite accountability. We are therefore reaching out to you for a final request included below. Our request holds special significance on the 46th anniversary of IDEA today.

Context:
In September 2020, we had escalated our concerns in a systemic state complaint to NC DPI and included OSEP because the OSEP Monitoring and State Improvement Planning (MSIP) division had been involved and aware since the first IDEA violation. Sadly, IDEA lost her soul because although our state's complaint investigation follows the letter of the law, it fails her spirit by following just the minimum procedures, contrary to expectations in the Federal Register, and thereby absolves school districts of their responsibility under federal and state laws. Our concerns underlying our systemic state complaint investigation have been endorsed in our our change.org petition addressed to you by Distinguished Professor Rud Turnbull, who is credited as one of the 36 individuals who have "changed the course of history for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities across the 20th century" in the U.S. Our concerns have been acknowledged by a prominent professor at Duke University Law School as well.

As a last resort, in October 2021 we filed a follow-on state complaint about NC DPI's investigation of our original systemic state complaint, and specifically requested an independent investigation based on the OSERS memo of July 2013. NC DPI dismissed our follow-on state complaint within a few days, only to re-open it three weeks later on November 12, 2021. However, NC DPI made the self-serving decision to investigate themselves rather than assign an independent investigation. As a result, the NC DPI Exceptional Children Division's role and actions fails to show requisite accountability. Why? Because NC DPI refused our request for the independent investigation, despite the option in the OSERS memo -- this after NC DPI reversed course on our state complaint, and despite the clear conflict of interest, and despite NC DPI's incorrect beliefs, contrary to OSEP, regarding systemic state complaints. NC DPI has chosen to continue their unreliable and conflicted investigation in the presence of the following on cc:

1. Katherine Neas, Acting Assistant Secretary for OSERS.
2. David Cantrell, Acting Director of OSEP.
3. Gregg Corr, Director of the MSIP Division of OSEP.
4. North Carolina Senator Jay Chaudhuri.
5. Virginia Fogg, Supervising attorney at Disability Rights North Carolina, a private, independent, 501(c)(3) nonprofit and a member of the National Disability Rights Network.

Our final request:
You had raised our hopes in March 2021 by posting on Twitter that: “For too many students, public education in America has been a flor pálida: a wilted rose, neglected, in need of care. We must be the master gardeners who cultivate it, who work every day to preserve its beauty and its purpose.”

We have filed a formal complaint with the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division in the U.S. Department of Justice. We urge you, as one of the master gardeners, to help restore IDEA's soul by following up on our U.S. DOJ complaint number 115411-LJQ filed on November 12, 2021 i.e. the same day NC DPI informed us of re-opening our follow-on state complaint with the self-serving decision to investigate themselves.

We will share this email for the benefit of all families at our memorial website as well.

Best,
Anil Daswani and Priti Daswani

Hello Dr. Cardona,
Good morning.

My wife and I are parents to a child with an IEP at an elementary public school in Wake county in North Carolina. We are writing to follow up on our last email from November 30, 2021 included below for your reference. We had shared concerns about the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NC DPI) making the self-serving decision to investigate themselves rather than assign an independent investigation. Today, we received the attached PDF letter and "Complaint Investigation Final Report, Case No. 21-040" from NC DPI.

As expected, the NC DPI Exceptional Children Division's role and actions failed to show requisite accountability.
The final report states:

"The purpose of the PWN is to memorialize the LEA’s proposed/refused decision(s), the reasons for the decisions, and any other actions rejected. Even though the LEA’s proposals/refusals and/or actions rejected may be a violation of the specific Policies related to the LEA’s decision(s), the documentation of the decisions in question, does not automatically indicate that the Notice is legally invalid. It is important that the PWN contains the LEA’s decisions and the reasons for the decisions, so that the parent is fully informed and can take steps to dispute the documented decisions, if in disagreement."

But let us also read what NC DPI concluded about its own role in undermining the State complaint procedures, which in turn undermined SEA's obligation to determine whether LEA has a practice inconsistent with part B or part B regulations, despite the undeniable evidence in our State complaint:

"The complainants’ dissatisfaction with the sufficiency of NCDPI’s investigation or disagreement with the adequacy of corrective actions issued for this complaint do not constitute a violation of Policies, Formal State Complaint Procedures, or Part B Regulations."

However, NC DPI'S conclusion completely contradicts SEA expectations for formal State complaint procedures, as described in the following text in the Federal Register:

"Adoption of State Complaint Procedures (§ 300.151)

. . .
We believe the broad scope of the State complaint procedures, as permitted in the regulations, is critical to each State’s exercise of its general supervision responsibilities. The complaint procedures provide parents, organizations, and other individuals with an important means of ensuring that the educational needs of children with disabilities are met and provide the SEA with a powerful tool to identify and correct noncompliance with Part B of the Act or of part 300."

and
"We believe that an SEA, in resolving a complaint challenging the appropriateness of a child’s educational program or services or the provision of FAPE, should not only determine whether the public agency has followed the required procedures to reach that determination, but also whether the public agency has reached a decision that is consistent with the requirements in Part B of the Act in light of the individual child’s abilities and needs. Thus, the SEA may need to review the evaluation data in the child’s record, or any additional data provided by the parties to the complaint, and the explanation included in the public agency’s notice to the parent as to why the agency made the determination regarding the child’s educational program or services. If necessary, the SEA may need to interview appropriate individuals, to determine whether the agency followed procedures and applied standards that are consistent with State standards, including the requirements of Part B of the Act, and whether the determination made by the public agency is consistent with those standards and supported by the data."

and
"We believe placing limits on the scope of the State complaint system, as suggested by the commenters, would diminish the SEA’s ability to ensure its LEAs are in compliance with Part B of the Act and its implementing regulations, and may result in an increase in the number of due process complaints filed and the number of due process hearings held."

Our conclusion:
NC DPI's role and actions have failed to show requisite accountability. The tragic outcome is that our State complaint procedures, which are supposed to be a "powerful tool" in service of students with disabilities have become frail at protecting the core of IDEA, because NC DPI follows just the minimum procedures, contrary to the expectations in the Federal Register, and thereby absolves school districts of their responsibility under the law. Such an outcome has far reaching implications for our current and future generations. Sadly, history will remember us as the generation that enabled such a tragic future.

Best,
Anil Daswani and Priti Daswani

Hello Ms. Neas,
Good afternoon.

My wife and I are parents to a child with an IEP at an elementary public school in Wake county in North Carolina. You may recall our emails to Dr. Miguel Cardona, with you on cc, on November 30, 2021 and December 17, 2021 that are included below for your reference. We noted that we had filed a formal complaint with the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division in the U.S. Department of Justice on November 12, 2021.

Today we received a response from the U.S. Department of Justice. Please see attached PDF letter for reference.

Specifically, the letter states:
"We have carefully reviewed your correspondence and have determined that your complaint should be referred to the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (“OSERS”) of the U.S. Department of Education, which has sole jurisdiction to enforce the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., which requires that States and local education agencies provide free appropriate public education to students with disabilities.

Accordingly, we have forwarded your complaint to OSERS."

I would like to share some related information for your reference:

1. I'd like to quote an important point from my complaint to the U.S. Department of Justice:
"Our concerns have been endorsed by Distinguished Professor Rud Turnbull, who is credited as one of the 36 individuals who have changed the course of history for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities across the 20th century in the US, and by a prominent professor at Duke University Law school as well."

2. Further, I would like to share some important context and related issues with our SEA that affect our complaint:

a. On the one hand, we received the attached letter from David Cantrell, Acting Director at OSEP dated July 29, 2021 which states:
"While our office is responsible for administering the IDEA to provide financial assistance to State educational agencies (SEAs), and through SEAs to local educational agencies (LEAs), to help meet the unique educational needs of eligible children with one or more of the specified disabilities as defined at 34 C.F.R. § 300.8 of the Federal regulations implementing Part B of IDEA, it is important to recognize that OSEP does not have the authority to intervene in matters that are the subject of State complaints or due process complaints, in which the parent may be requesting a due process hearing or is the subject of litigation."

b. But on the other hand, the attached letter from the U.S. Department of Justice states that OSERS has sole jurisdiction to enforce the IDEA. And most importantly, please note from my email on December 17, 2021, included below, that our SEA's investigation completely contradicts SEA expectations for formal State complaint procedures as described in the Federal Register.

Our request:
Our struggles with denial of FAPE for our son have been going on for a long time now. Can you please advise when we can expect to receive a response from OSERS to our complaint forwarded to your office as noted in the attached letter from the U.S. Department of Justice?

Best,
Anil Daswani and Priti Daswani

Hello Katherine Neas,
Good morning.

My wife and I are parents to a child with an IEP at an elementary public school in Wake county in North Carolina.

On February 8, 2022:
I received an email from the U.S. Department of Justice with a letter stating that:
"We have carefully reviewed your correspondence and have determined that your complaint should be referred to the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (“OSERS”) of the U.S. Department of Education, which has sole jurisdiction to enforce the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., which requires that States and local education agencies provide free appropriate public education to students with disabilities.

Accordingly, we have forwarded your complaint to OSERS."

On February 9, 2022:
I received an email from Charmaine Canton at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education with a letter from Andre Thomas, Administrative Officer. The OCR letter states:
"On February 8, 2022, the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR) received the complaint you filed against Wake County Public School System. Your Complaint was referred by the Department of Justice. We are currently evaluating your complaint to determine whether OCR will proceed to investigate the allegation(s). Information about OCR and the laws OCR enforces is available online at http://www.ed.gov/ocr.

We are attaching a Consent Form. Please sign and date the Consent Form and return it to OCR as soon as possible. If we do not receive the signed Consent Form within 20 calendar days of the date of this letter, OCR may close your complaint."

On February 9, 2022:
I emailed you the same day after receiving the OCR letter to request clarification on how to proceed with the OCR consent form. Specifically, I asked you the following question:

"Question:
How do you recommend we proceed in this case? On the one hand, we expect OSERS to process our complaint per the Federal Register and because OSERS has sole jurisdiction to enforce the IDEA according to the U.S. Department of Justice. On the other hand, OCR has sent us a letter in response to the referral by the U.S. Department of Justice, but OCR does not enforce IDEA. Should we sign the OCR consent form with your confirmation that OCR will investigate our complaint pertaining to the implementation of IDEA adequately and appropriately?"

Today on February 10, 2022:
I received an email included below, with you included, from Charmaine Canton at OCR stating: "Your Consent Form was received along with our Complaint. Your complaint will be assigned to an OCR staff member shortly, and that person will review the information you have submitted so far." However, I am not aware of my signing a consent form so far for OCR regarding my complaint forwarded to OSERS by the U.S. Department of Justice. I would appreciate OCR sharing a copy of my signed consent form for my reference.

In summary:
At this time, I am assuming that you are taking responsibility on behalf of OSERS for my complaint pertaining to the implementation of IDEA to be processed by OCR adequately and appropriately, even though OCR states that they do not enforce IDEA. Please note that an adequate and appropriate investigation of my complaint will not only impact my son's education, but potentially also impact thousands of students with disabilities in Wake county, NC. Please also note an important point from my complaint: "Our concerns have been endorsed by Distinguished Professor Rud Turnbull, who is credited as one of the 36 individuals who have changed the course of history for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities across the 20th century in the US, and by a prominent professor at Duke University Law school as well."

I will share this email for the benefit of all families at our memorial website as well at https://www.rip-idea.info

Best,
Anil Daswani

Hello Ms. Neas,
Good evening.

Thank you for your email. You noted that:
"As you are aware, if you suspect that WCPSS or NCDPI violated IDEA, you have the right to file a complaint with school district and/or NCDPI. You also have the right to request mediation or to file a due process complaint."

As you are aware, we did file a complaint with NC DPI, and then again about NC DPI with NC DPI. But NC DPI absolved WCPSS, and then absolved themselves as well, despite the undeniable evidence.

You state that we have the right to request mediation, but as you know mediation is a voluntary process. How should we expect either WCPSS or NC DPI to resolve our issues through a voluntary process after both WCPSS and NC DPI have been absolved of their violations? I would appreciate either Jill McKenna at WCPSS or Sherry Thomas at NC DPI to help answer my question.

Lastly, you state that we also have the right to file a due process complaint. However, NC DPI has a responsibility to limit the number of due process complaints filed and number of due process hearings held, and the authority to be able to do so as well. Please refer to the following in the Federal Register:
"We believe placing limits on the scope of the State complaint system, as suggested by the commenters, would diminish the SEA’s ability to ensure its LEAs are in compliance with Part B of the Act and its implementing regulations, and may result in an increase in the number of due process complaints filed and the number of due process hearings held."

In short, we have proven that:

1. WCPSS has an undeniable practice of undermining the legal validity of the content of the Prior Written notice,
2. NC DPI absolves WCPSS of their practice, and then absolves themselves of their legal obligation to hold WCPSS accountable,
3. the U.S. Department of Justice defers to OSERS as having sole jurisdiction over IDEA, and
4. the Assistant Secretary at OSERS is unable to hold NC DPI accountable.

All of the above despite our concerns being endorsed by Distinguished Professor Rud Turnbull, who is credited as one of the 36 individuals who have changed the course of history for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities across the 20th century in the US, and by a prominent professor at Duke University Law school as well. In other words, we conclude from the above that the notion of accountability in IDEA is completely broken. Can you please confirm for our son's benefit?

We will share this for the benefit of all families at https://www.rip-idea.info

Best,
Anil Daswani

Hello Ms. Fairfax,
Good afternoon. Thank you for your email.

It is true that "IDEA places the responsibility on States to implement procedures to resolve disagreements through State complaints, mediation, and due process complaints, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151-153; 300.506; and 300.507-300.516 and 300.532-300.533."

But then the question becomes, how should States process complaints against itself? At this time OSEP has set the precedent for the answer to this question with the OSEP letter stating that "it is the Department’s longstanding position that an SEA may choose to use its personnel to resolve the complaint against it or may arrange with an outside party to do so".

OSEP has given States an option to investigate themselves, via the July 2013 memo, despite the undeniable conflict of interest, and thereby allowed States to completely undermine the scenario where the State is failing the spirit of the law as described in the Federal Register. OSEP has given States this option in the absence of any IDEA statute or regulation or any commentary to the regulations in the Federal Register on this topic.

My final question is: what was OSEP's rationale in setting such a precedent where States may use its own personnel to resolve a complaint against itself despite the clear conflict of interest, and under what legal authority did OSEP set this precedent via the July 2013 memo?

Best,
Anil Daswani

Hello Ms. Williams,
Good morning.

I am writing to follow up on your last email on August 31, 2022, included below for your reference. You may recall that I have been awaiting a response to my final question to Ms. Fairfax since August 2, 2022. Meanwhile, on my request, Congresswoman Deborah Ross' office contacted your office on September 1, 2022 to help follow up, and recommended I wait for up to 30 days i.e. till today, for a response. Can you please advise?

Context for reference:
On August 2, 2022, I emailed Ms. Fairfax a question about Qs B-12 in the OSERS memo of July 2013 pertaining to how a state resolves a complaint against itself. This was my question to Ms. Fairfax:

"My final question is: what was OSEP's rationale in setting such a precedent where States may use its own personnel to resolve a complaint against itself despite the clear conflict of interest, and under what legal authority did OSEP set this precedent via the July 2013 memo?"

Please note:
On August 8, 2022 I had shared in my email to you:

"Please note: due process hearings in NC had a similar self-serving and flawed option until December 2021. When families or school systems didn’t agree with the judge’s decision, they could appeal to a State Hearing Review Officer, a position appointed by NC DPI. Only after the hearing officer weighed in could families take their case to court -- an oddity in NC, where few if any other state agencies are allowed to pick review officers when someone disputes a decision. Under the new system, appeals will now go straight from the administrative law judge to the courts system."

This new system, which stems from legislation driven by efforts of NC Senator Brent Jackson, on cc, is a much improved way forward for a small fraction of parents who can afford to file for due process considering the time, effort and money involved. On the other hand, the State complaint process, which is free, becomes a critical recourse but fails to serve the remaining vast majority of parents fairly because NC DPI undermines the process by following the minimum procedures only, which in turn fails the spirit of the law, and thereby absolves school districts of their responsibilities under Federal and State laws. NC DPI has in effect compromised our State complaint process. The only impractical recourse left then, is to file for due process. But actually NC DPI has a responsibility and the authority to be able to limit the number of due process complaints filed and due process hearings held, as explained in the following in the Federal Register:

"Adoption of State Complaint Procedures (§ 300.151)
...
We believe the broad scope of the State complaint procedures, as permitted in the regulations, is critical to each State’s exercise of its general supervision responsibilities. The complaint procedures provide parents, organizations, and other individuals with an important means of ensuring that the educational needs of children with disabilities are met and provide the SEA with a powerful tool to identify and correct noncompliance with Part B of the Act or of part 300."

and
"We believe placing limits on the scope of the State complaint system, as suggested by the commenters, would diminish the SEA’s ability to ensure its LEAs are in compliance with Part B of the Act and its implementing regulations, and may result in an increase in the number of due process complaints filed and the number of due process hearings held."

My concerns have been endorsed by Distinguished Professor Rud Turnbull, who is credited as "one of the 36 individuals who have changed the course of history for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities across the 20th century in the US", and by a prominent professor at Duke University Law school as well. Please see a 2 minute PDF summary at https://rip-idea.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/NC-DPI-failing-students-with-disabilities-Oct-2022.pdf I have attached the PDF for your reference.

Furthermore, NC DPI then absolved itself in my follow-on State complaint against itself by using the self-serving option of investigating themselves i.e. an option provided in Qs B-12 of the OSERS memo, rather than assign an independent investigation as requested, which is also an option in Qs B-12. The self-serving option is inherently flawed due to the clear conflict of interest, and effectively negates any chance of restoring our compromised State complaint process to its originally intended purpose i.e. to be "a powerful tool to identify and correct non-compliance with part B of the Act or of part 300", as explained in the Federal Register.

My request:
OSEP MSIP division has a "state improvement" mandate. It is critical that we restore our compromised State complaint process to its originally intended purpose, so it can serve as "an important means of ensuring that the educational needs of children with disabilities are met", as explained in the Federal Register. I am therefore requesting for your kind assistance that:

1) Ms. Fairfax responds to my final question, and
2) OSERS course corrects in favor of improving accountability:
a) by retracting the self-serving option of states appointing their own personnel from Qs B-12 in the memo. Or alternatively, in all fairness at least add a requirement to Qs B-12 in the memo that the state must honor any request for an independent investigation, rather than always defaulting to the self-serving option in complaints against itself.
b) and by issuing corrective action retroactively, such that NC DPI re-assigns my last State complaint against the state as an independent investigation to Disability Rights NC.

In closing:
Secretary Miguel Cardona had raised our hopes by posting on Twitter that:
“For too many students, public education in America has been a flor pálida: a wilted rose, neglected, in need of care. We must be the master gardeners who cultivate it, who work every day to preserve its beauty and its purpose.”

My long journey advocating for positive change remains motivated by the sincere hope that all families will be able to rely on a State complaint process that is restored to improve accountability by serving students with disabilities as originally intended, as explained in the Federal Register. But that outcome can only come to fruition with your support as a "master gardener" by having OSERS course correct as requested above. Only then will you have given all families their rightfully deserved tool, enabling all of us to help transform the "flor pálida" to a "flor bonita" together.

Lastly, I will share this email and an eventual update on the resulting outcome for the benefit of all families at https://www.rip-idea.info

Best,
Anil Daswani

Hello Ms. Williams,
Good afternoon.

Thank you for your letter dated October 17, 2022.

I noted a few points from your letter:

1. "First and foremost, the IDEA program is intended to foster Federal, State, and local collaboration to ensure that a free appropriate public education is available to all eligible children with disabilities in each State or jurisdiction."

First and foremost, I have shared my own son's example of being denied FAPE in NC.

2. "In areas where the IDEA regulations are silent or ambiguous, the Department, as the cognizant agency, will sometimes issue policy guidance or interpretations."

The dictionary defines "cognizant" as an adjective to mean "having knowledge or being aware of." The Department ought to be aware of the clear conflict of interest with the State choosing the self-serving option to investigate themselves. Yet the Department, as the "cognizant agency" chose to ignore the clear expectations stated in the Federal Register for State complaints, and instead chose to give the State the choice of the self-serving option.

3. "However, neither the IDEA nor its regulations address the impartiality of, or contain similar prohibitions for, the person who investigates and resolves a State complaint. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151-300.153; see, e.g., 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3)(F). Therefore, the SEA may either appoint its own personnel to resolve a State complaint or may make arrangements with an outside party to resolve the complaint."

If IDEA nor its regulations addresses the "impartiality of, or contain similar prohibitions for, the person who investigates and resolves a State complaint", then the natural expectation is that the Department, as "the cognizant agency", aligns with the spirit of the law as explained in the Federal Register i.e. for State complaints to "provide parents, organizations, and other individuals with an important means of ensuring that the educational needs of children with disabilities are met".

Right now, the State complaint process is failing me as a parent, and by extension failing all other families as well. And yet, the Department, as "the cognizant agency", fails to address the issue at hand.

4. "We understand your disagreement with OSEP’s position that an SEA as a public agency may resolve a State complaint filed against itself."

Thank you. You have, in essence, acknowledged that OSEP's position is flawed, but have chosen to continue to align with the Department's i.e. the "the cognizant agency"'s long-standing yet flawed position as an administrative convenience.

I will share your letter and this final update for the benefit of all families at https://www.rip-idea.info

Best,
Anil Daswani

Hello Ms. Glenna Wright-Gallo,
Good morning.

My wife and I are parents to a child with an IEP at an elementary public school in Wake county in North Carolina. Firstly, we would like to congratulate you on your appointment as Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS). In reading your OSERS blog and learning more about your background, we are inspired by your passion for improvement, your desire to challenge preconceived beliefs, and your commitment to making those changes personally and professionally. We hope that you will consider input from all stakeholders, including parents, as we work together to improve the educational foundation for our current and future generations.

Today, we are reaching out to request your assistance with a crucial issue that affects the education of children with disabilities nationwide. Given your role, we recognize the expertise you bring to this issue, and believe that your intervention is essential to address this issue with requisite urgency. While our initial concerns were specific to the North Carolina Department of Public Education (NC DPI), we now realize that this is a problem that extends to every state. At the core of this nationwide issue is a flawed memo from the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). We have shared our concerns with Ms. Denise Marshall, the esteemed CEO of COPAA, an independent nonprofit organization of over 3,000 parents, attorneys, advocates, and professionals.

Context:

• State complaints as a powerful tool to identify and correct non-compliance:

When parents disagree with school decisions, their main recourse is to either file a State complaint or pursue a Due Process Hearing. While the latter may be an option for some parents who can afford it, the vast majority rely on the free State complaint process, which was designed as a "powerful tool" for identifying and correcting noncompliance with the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In fact, Congress intended the tool to be so powerful that IDEA was written with no ceiling on their use, setting only a floor with the word "Minimum" in "Sec. 300.152 Minimum State complaint procedures", and with the intent that use of such a powerful tool would result in only a minimum number of due process complaints filed (Refer to explanation in the Federal Register section "Adoption of State Complaint Procedures (§ 300.151)").

However, it is deeply concerning and disheartening to witness our state exploit the "Minimum" floor of IDEA as a convenient loophole. By adhering to the minimum State complaint procedures, our state adhered to the letter of the law, but failed to fully embrace its underlying spirit as outlined in the Federal Register. This calculated approach shielded our school district from its legal responsibilities, leaving us no recourse despite the undeniable evidence that stood before us. This situation raises serious concerns about the prioritization of compliance over the fundamental principles of IDEA. Such exploitation of the "Minimum" floor is an affront to the very essence of IDEA, which is rooted in the principles of justice, equality, and inclusivity. Our children deserve more than mere compliance; they deserve a robust and unwavering commitment to their educational rights.

• Role of OSEP in supporting the loophole:

Further compounding the issue, OSEP published a memo that allows states to investigate themselves or assign third-party investigations when parents file State complaints against the state (See Qs. B-12 in the memo). However, OSEP's guidance lacks clear conditions for conducting third-party investigations, resulting in states defaulting to investigating themselves. This is analogous to being forced to go to the same doctor for a second opinion. When was the last time anyone did that? OSEP is perpetuating a system that is inherently biased and a culture that is self-protective, by allowing states to default to such a self-serving approach that undermines accountability and fairness for families with disabilities. This issue is not unique to our state, as the OSEP memo applies to all states, preventing accountability across the nation. For example:

• In my own State complaint against the state in September 2021, NC DPI absolved itself by conducting an in-house investigation, despite my request for an independent third-party investigation, which could have helped uncover systemic violations in Wake county, the largest in North Carolina, and one of the larger ones in the nation. But that is not all. Regrettably, NC DPI has an embarrassing track record of being in the wrong and failing to uphold the rights of students with disabilities. For example:
  • NC DPI incorrectly asserted that my original State complaint from September 2020 could not be filed as systemic, only to be confirmed to the contrary by OSEP on my providing relevant reasoning from the Federal Register.
  • NC DPI initially refused to open my follow-on State complaint against the state in September 2021 only to reverse their decision a few weeks later after my advocacy with OSEP.
  • NC DPI absolved itself stating that my dissatisfaction with the sufficiency of NC DPI's investigation or disagreement with the adequacy of corrective actions did not constitute a violation of Policies, Formal State Complaint Procedures, or Part B Regulations. This reasoning completely undermines the spirit of the law, as described in the Federal Register. (Refer to explanation in the section "Adoption of State Complaint Procedures (§ 300.151)"). Moreover, NC DPI absolved itself despite my sharing specific evidence of where NC DPI fell short in its investigation of my original State complaint. In any other profession, such conduct may have been met with consequences. However, in education, it seems that we accept undermining the law as a way of life, and even reward it with promotions. A prime example is the recent promotion from the position of Section Chief for Policy, Monitoring, and Audit at NC DPI to the Director of EC Division at NC DPI.
• In short, NC DPI is perpetuating a system wherein State complaints have become anything but a powerful tool to identify and correct non-compliance. Parents, on the other hand, are left with Due Process as the only recourse, creating an unfair power dynamic while school districts retain legal teams with taxpayer funds. It is worth noting that the Federal Register explains how the use of State complaints as a powerful tool is intended to minimize the number of Due Process complaints filed.

• Role of OSEP in sustaining the loophole:

Subsequently in 2022, I raised significant concerns about the glaring lack of impartiality in the investigation and resolution of State complaints against the State directly with Ms. Valerie Williams, the Director of OSEP. In her letter dated October 17, 2022, Ms. Williams acknowledged that IDEA regulations specify requirements for impartial hearing officers and impartial mediators, prohibiting the involvement of SEA or local educational agency employees with personal or professional conflicts of interest. However, she stated that IDEA does not contain a similar provision for impartiality in the investigation and resolution of State complaints and therefore, the SEA may either appoint its own personnel or may make arrangements with an outside party to resolve a State complaint. If an employee of the SEA is exempt from serving as an impartial hearing officer or impartial mediator when he/she has a personal or professional conflict of interest, then with all due respect, what makes Ms. Williams believe that the same employee could be impartial for investigating and resolving a State complaint against the State, despite the professional conflict of interest?

It is worth remembering that the Federal Register explicitly states that State complaint procedures are meant to provide "an important means of ensuring that educational needs of children with disabilities are met". Ms. Williams acknowledged my disagreement with OSEP's position, but did not revise the OSEP memo despite the gravity of the situation, leaving states unaccountable and undermining the rights of students with disabilities nationwide. This is a serious issue that needs immediate attention and action. We have brought these concerns to the attention of Ms. Denise Marshall, the esteemed CEO of COPAA, who is currently compiling a report on State complaints. It is crucial to recognize that this OSEP memo is pivotal to the topic of State complaints.

Our requests:
We kindly request that OSEP take immediate steps to revise the memo, such that parent requests for third-party investigations are honored in the case of State complaints against the state.

Additionally, to ensure a fair and impartial resolution, we request OSEP to apply this revision retroactively, such that my State complaints against the state can be reopened and investigated by an unbiased third party. In this regard, we recommend that the investigation be entrusted to Disability Rights NC, which is the federally designated protection and advocacy agency for our state and a nonprofit organization. I am willing to provide any further information or assistance that may be necessary to support your understanding of the situation or help in addressing this issue effectively.

In closing:
IDEA emphasizes that "Improving educational results for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities."

Unfortunately our experience has shown that the current system lacks any meaningful oversight and accountability to fulfill this essential element of our national policy. It should come as no surprise then that undermining the law in education has become a way of life. In your OSERS blog, you wrote about taking a stand for what needs to be improved, as that's the only way we are going to move ahead. We agree with you. The very essence of IDEA, like the majestic tree in the Department of Education’s endearing logo, relies on the strength of its roots. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that the roots of IDEA are decaying due to a severe lack of oversight and accountability.

In March 2021, Secretary Miguel Cardona described public education in America as a flor pálida: a wilted rose, neglected, in need of care. It is time for us to become the master gardeners who cultivate and preserve its beauty and purpose. Revising the OSEP memo will enhance the integrity of investigations, instilling greater confidence in parents regarding the outcomes. By holding states accountable for State complaint outcomes as outlined in the Federal Register, and ensuring school districts take responsibility for their actions, the education system will prioritize transparency and fairness. This will foster increased trust in the education system and promote a more collaborative approach to addressing concerns, ultimately reducing the need for State complaints and Due Process hearings. Your intervention has the potential to revive the vitality and effectiveness of IDEA, and ultimately transform our "flor pálida" into a blossoming "flor bonita".

We are grateful for your time and attention to this matter, and for considering our request. We greatly value your commitment to protecting and strengthening the education foundation for children with disabilities. Given your role as Assistant Secretary, OSERS, we recognize the expertise and unique perspective you bring to this crucial issue. Your actions today have the power to shape a brighter tomorrow for students with disabilities across our nation. With your involvement, we are hopeful for a future where IDEA flourishes. We will remain grateful for your commitment to this cause.

Best,
Anil Daswani and Priti Daswani

Mr. and Mrs. Daswani,

I appreciate your advocacy on behalf of your child with a disability, as well as all students with disabilities. IDEA was created from the advocacy of parents, families, and people with disabilities, to ensure that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that meets their unique needs and prepares them for further education, employment, and independent living. As such, soliciting and using the feedback from parents, regarding their lived experiences with their child with a disability, is crucial.

Procedural Safeguards are the mechanism to address disputes regarding IEP services, as you correctly point out in your email. Thank you for providing your perspective on the consequence of the OSEP Memo’s technical assistance to States, as it applied to your experience in North Carolina. I can assure you that the expectation is for an independent on-site investigation to be conducted for all State complaints, including those filed against a State Education Agency (SEA), as required by IDEA.

I will be reviewing this with the OSEP team, and discussing potential actions, because of your email. The OSEP state team will be in contact with you, as well. I hope that you and your family are enjoying a nice summer, in anticipation to the upcoming school year.

Sincerely,

Good morning Assistant Secretary Wright-Gallo,
I hope this email finds you well.

First and foremost, thank you for the prompt response from Ms. Lynne Fairfax at the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) regarding my previous email to you on July 5, 2023. I appreciate the information provided by Ms.Fairfax in her email from July 21, 2023, attached for your reference. As we strive to ensure full compliance with IDEA requirements, I must urgently address a crucial matter raised by Ms. Fairfax's response:

• At the heart of this issue is whether the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NC DPI) fulfilled the IDEA requirement for an "independent on-site investigation" when investigating my State complaint against them. I am deeply concerned that the Department's longstanding position, as stated by Ms. Fairfax, that allows an SEA to use its personnel to resolve complaints against itself does not comply with IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(1) because it raises the issue of professional conflict of interest and directly challenges the integrity, impartiality and objectivity of the investigation process, as outlined in IDEA's requirement for an independent on-site investigation.

Ms. Fairfax noted the following in her email:

• "To follow-up with Assistant Secretary Glenna Wright-Gallo’s response to your question regarding IDEA requirements pertaining to procedural safeguards. Specifically, as the procedural safeguards relate to the ability of an SEA to investigate a complaint against itself. You asked that OSEP “take immediate steps to revise the memo, such that parent requests for third-party investigations are honored in the case of State complaints against the state.”
• Assistant Secretary Wright-Gallo stated in her July 7, 2023 e-mail correspondence, “[p]rocedural [s]afeguards are the mechanism to address disputes regarding IEP services…the expectation is for an independent on-site investigation to be conducted for all State complaints, including those filed against a State Education Agency (SEA), as required by IDEA.” Please keep in mind that, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(1), the SEA must “[c]arry out an independent investigation, if the SEA determines that an investigation is necessary” [emphasis added]. As OSEP Director Gregg Corr indicated in his July 20, 2022 letter to you, and OSEP Director Valerie Williams stated in her October 17, 2022 response to your inquiry to the Department regarding OSEP’s rationale for permitting a State to use its own personnel to resolve a complaint that is made against the State, it is the Department’s longstanding position that an SEA may choose to use its personnel to resolve the complaint against it or may arrange with an outside party to do so. If the SEA chooses to use an outside party, the SEA remains responsible for complying with all procedural and remediation steps required in part 300. 71 Fed. Reg. 46602 (August 14, 2006). See also Question B-12 of the Questions and Answers on IDEA Part B Dispute Resolution Procedures OSEP Memo and Q&A on Dispute Resolution (July 23, 2013) - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act."

The Department's longstanding position and its implications:

• IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(1) explicitly states that the SEA must carry out an “independent on-site investigation” if the SEA determines that an investigation is necessary. It is important to emphasize that IDEA does not, in any way, dictate that the investigation must be independent only if the SEA believes it must be independent. Instead, IDEA simply mandates that the SEA takes the responsibility of determining if an investigation is necessary. And if the SEA determines that an investigation is necessary then such an investigation must be an "independent on-site investigation".
  • In your email from July 7, 2023 you clarified: "I can assure you that the expectation is for an independent on-site investigation to be conducted for all State complaints, including those filed against a State Education Agency (SEA), as required by IDEA." Yet here is what happened:
    • On November 8, 2021, NC DPI initiated an investigation in response to my State complaint filed against them, as they determined that an investigation was necessary. Regrettably, the investigation was assigned to an NC DPI employee, specifically Cathy Boshamer, who serves as a Dispute Resolution Consultant at NC DPI. This investigation cannot be deemed independent because the assignment to an NC DPI employee raised the issue of professional conflict of interest and directly challenged the integrity, impartiality and objectivity of the investigation process, as outlined in IDEA's requirement for an independent on-site investigation. I communicated my objections directly to NC DPI and also included Mr. Gregg Corr and Ms. Katherine Neas from the U.S. Department of Education on cc. However, the investigation proceeded with the assignment to the NC DPI employee, despite my concerns.
    • Subsequently, on December 17, 2021, NC DPI emailed me a final report stating that "The Exceptional Children (EC) Division, Department of Public Instruction (DPI), has completed the investigation of the complaint filed on October 20, 2021, against the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI)."

The crucial role of Assistant Secretary in ensuring Departmental compliance with IDEA:

• With all due respect, I must assert that the Department's claim of their position being as longstanding as it has been is inconsequential:
  • Ms. Fairfax referenced letters from OSEP Directors Gregg Corr and Valerie Williams, which noted that IDEA has not specifically addressed how the SEA should handle complaints filed against itself and the impartiality of those conducting such investigations – these are the basis of the Department's position. However, it is essential to recognize that IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(1) unequivocally invalidates the Department's position allowing an SEA to investigate complaints filed against itself, because the nature of such an investigation inherently lacks independence and cannot be deemed an "independent on-site investigation."
  • Moreover, what truly matters is that now you lead the Department, with your authority confirmed by the U.S. Senate in May 2023, which places the ultimate responsibility in your hands. It is essential to acknowledge that no entity, including the Department, is infallible. Your commitment to improving things that are not working and addressing concerns, as is evident in your OSERS blog, is commendable, and it reflects your dedication to enhancing the well-being of students with disabilities.
  • Our primary focus should center on unwavering adherence to IDEA as the law as we strive to uphold the rights of students with disabilities. In shaping the legacy of your leadership, I urge you to reevaluate and update the Department's position by revising the OSEP memo because it does not comply with IDEA requirements. By taking proactive steps, we can preserve your esteemed leadership and preempt any potential questions or concerns that may arise in future.

Crucial question: Fulfillment of IDEA requirement

• The heart of the matter is whether NC DPI adhered to the IDEA requirement when assigning the investigation of my State complaint filed against NC DPI to an NC DPI employee, as permitted by the OSEP memo. This crucial aspect bears significant weight on our shared mission to ensure full compliance with IDEA as the law. Thus, I must pose the crucial question to you directly: Did NC DPI fulfill the IDEA requirement for an "independent on-site investigation" in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(1) when assigning the investigation of my State complaint against NC DPI to an NC DPI employee instead of an independent third-party?
  • My reason for this question is twofold:
    • First, if you confirm that NC DPI did not comply with the IDEA requirement in this case, then I kindly request OSEP to revise the memo promptly to instead ensure that parent requests for independent third-party investigations are honored in all cases of State complaints filed against the SEA. This revision is essential to maintain the integrity, impartiality and objectivity of the investigation process, as outlined in IDEA's requirement for an independent on-site investigation.
    • Second, to ensure a fair and impartial resolution in my particular case, I respectfully request OSEP to apply this revision retroactively, allowing my State complaint filed against NC DPI to be reopened and investigated by an unbiased third-party. This step is essential to uphold the principles of integrity, impartiality, and objectivity in the investigation process, as outlined in IDEA's requirement for an independent on-site investigation. In this regard, I recommend entrusting the investigation to Disability Rights NC, which is the federally designated protection and advocacy agency for our state and a nonprofit organization. I remain fully committed to providing any necessary information or assistance to support your understanding of the situation and facilitate an effective resolution.

In closing:
My wife and I are most grateful for your invaluable assistance in this matter, as it directly pertains to compliance with IDEA requirements, and profoundly affects students with disabilities nationwide. We look forward to your prompt response to my crucial question and immediate actions on my requests. Your invaluable insight and support hold the potential to pave the way for positive change as we uphold the rights and well-being of students with disabilities nationwide. We are also hopeful that your assistance in this matter will be beneficial to the many organizations on cc on this email, such as COPAA, ECAC, Council for Children's Rights, Disability Rights NC, the Children's Law Clinic at Duke University Law School, EdNC.org, the Office of Congresswoman Deborah Ross, and others.

Thank you once again for your time and attention to this matter. Meanwhile, we will continue to share our emails including this on our website at https://www.rip-idea.info to raise awareness and support families nationwide.

Best,
Anil Daswani and Priti Daswani

Good morning Assistant Secretary Wright-Gallo,
I hope this email finds you well.

I am writing to follow up on my previous email from July 25, 2023, where I expressed my deep concerns about the handling of State complaints against the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NC DPI), and to seek further clarification on the matter. I am grateful for the prompt response from Ms. Lynne Fairfax at the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) and for providing the information from her email on August 2, 2023, attached for your reference.

In her email, Ms. Fairfax explained:

• "In your e-mail, you asked, “Did [the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI)] fulfill the [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)] requirement for an "independent on-site investigation" in 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(1) when assigning the investigation of my State complaint against NC DPI to an NC DPI employee instead of an independent third-party?” As we previously informed you, effective May 11, 1999, this office does not conduct Secretarial reviews of State complaint decisions filed under 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151-300.153. IDEA places the responsibility on States to implement procedures to resolve disagreements through State complaints, mediation, and due process complaints, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151-153; 300.506; and 300.507-300.516 and 300.532-300.533. This authority was removed when the 1999 final IDEA Part B regulations were published. However, you may follow-up with NCDPI directly regarding its procedures for determining whether the SEA appoints its own personnel or arranges with an outside party to resolve a complaint."

However, to be clear – the heart of the matter lies in the alarming and disconcerting reality that the Department continues to grant all states, in Qs B-12 of the OSEP memo, the unrestricted liberty to investigate themselves in cases of State complaints against the state.

• The Department's position is deeply troubling and raises profound questions about the Department's commitment to accountability, because granting states such unrestricted liberty directly challenges the integrity, impartiality and objectivity of the "independent on-site investigation" mandated by IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(1).
• We respect your commitment to IDEA's principles as demonstrated in your OSERS blog, but we find it challenging to reconcile the disparity between those principles and the Department's continued position with the unchanged OSEP memo that is in direct conflict with federal law and prevents any accountability nationwide.

Final question: OSEP compliance with IDEA

In your email from July 7, 2023 you clarified: "I can assure you that the expectation is for an independent on-site investigation to be conducted for all State complaints, including those filed against a State Education Agency (SEA), as required by IDEA." Thus, I must pose my final question to you directly:

• Does the Department's longstanding position, as stated in Qs B-12 of the OSEP memo, that allows an SEA to use its personnel to resolve complaints against itself, comply with IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(1) -- knowing that it raises the issue of professional conflict of interest and directly challenges the integrity, impartiality, and objectivity of the investigation process, as outlined in IDEA's requirement for an "independent on-site investigation"?

In closing:
We appreciate your attention to this critical matter and respectfully request a prompt response to our final question, given the urgency and importance of the issue at hand. We are also hopeful that your assistance in this matter will be beneficial to the many organizations on cc on this email, such as COPAA, ECAC, Council for Children's Rights, Disability Rights NC, the Children's Law Clinic at Duke University Law School, EdNC.org, the Office of Congresswoman Deborah Ross, and others.

Once again, thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Best,
Anil Daswani and Priti Daswani

Good morning Assistant Secretary Wright-Gallo,
I trust this email finds you well.

I am following up on my August 3, 2023 email, included below, for my final question requesting confirmation about the U.S. Department of Education's longstanding position as being compliant with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). I respect that you have a busy schedule, and I truly appreciate your consideration. But the impact of the Department's longstanding position, which applies to all states, is profound because it prevents accountability for millions of students with disabilities, affecting not just my family, but hundreds of thousands nationwide. Consider the educational rights of 7.3 million vulnerable students, comprising 15% of the 2021-2022 student population, deprived by officials in the Federal government. These are not just numbers; they represent real children with potential, hopes, dreams and aspirations, making it critical to address this issue urgently.

Specifically, I sought your assistance with the following final question about compliance with IDEA:

• "Does the Department's longstanding position, as stated in Qs B-12 of the OSEP memo, that allows an SEA to use its personnel to resolve complaints against itself, comply with IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(1) -- knowing that it raises the issue of professional conflict of interest and directly challenges the integrity, impartiality, and objectivity of the investigation process, as outlined in IDEA's requirement for an "independent on-site investigation"?"

I respectfully urge your prompt attention to my final question. Your leadership is pivotal in resolving this issue. I am hopeful your assistance will benefit numerous organizations on CC including The New York Times, The Associated Press, and CBS 60 Minutes, who as torchbearers of truth, can help amplify the message and spotlight the importance of protecting the educational rights of millions of students with disabilities nationwide.

Our follow-on letter to IDEA:
In June 2021, my wife and I penned a heartfelt letter to IDEA mourning her loss shortly after her 45th anniversary. While we respect your commitment to IDEA's principles as seen in your OSERS blog, we find it challenging to reconcile the disparity with the Department's longstanding position that is in direct conflict with federal law. So, we wrote a follow-on letter to IDEA expressing our concerns. Please find our brief letter below:

In closing:
Assistant Secretary Wright-Gallo, your thoughtful consideration of this critical issue holds the potential to restore accountability for millions of students with disabilities nationwide. Just as Judy Heumann tirelessly advocated for the rights of individuals with disabilities, we remain committed to ensuring the educational rights of these students are upheld. We eagerly await your response to my final question, recognizing that their well-being and the principles you stand for are at stake. Thank you for dedicating your time and attention to this critical issue.

Best,
Anil Daswani and Priti Daswani

Good afternoon Assistant Secretary Wright-Gallo,
I trust this email finds you well.

I request you to review my earlier emails below for context. Over two months have passed since I posed a crucial question on August 3, 2023 regarding the U.S. Department of Education's longstanding position. This question carries immense weight impacting millions of children with disabilities nationwide. It seeks a simple 'yes' or 'no' response:

• "Does the Department's longstanding position, as stated in Qs B-12 of the OSEP memo, that allows a State Education Agency (SEA) to use its personnel to resolve complaints against itself, comply with IDEA 34 C.F.R. §300.152(a)(1) -- knowing that it raises the issue of professional conflict of interest and directly challenges the integrity, impartiality, and objectivity of the investigation process, as outlined in IDEA's requirement for an 'independent on-site investigation'?"

Unfortunately, my question remains unanswered, buried under a lengthy response from Ms. Fairfax at the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) that sidesteps a straightforward answer. Consequently, we wrote a final letter to IDEA expressing our concerns.

Our final letter to IDEA:

"Dear IDEA,
It has been over a month since my wife and I last wrote to you in September. Sadly, we have reached an impasse, and I write with a heavy heart.

Assistant Secretary Glenna Wright-Gallo, entrusted with leading the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), has a distinguished career spanning over 25 years in service of individuals with disabilities. Her commitment to challenging the status quo and championing the rights of millions of children with disabilities is evident in her introduction at the OSERS blog.

However, a crucial question remains unanswered: does the Department's longstanding position comply with the law? It is a question that speaks to the heart of accountability for those very same millions of children with disabilities.

Let me provide another example of the consequences of the Department's longstanding position. In July 2023, OSEP released updated policy guidance on state general supervision responsibilities. In the press release, Assistant Secretary Wright-Gallo is quoted as saying: “We must continue to Raise the Bar for all children. One vital component of this effort is to ensure children with disabilities, birth through age 21, receive the early intervention services and a free appropriate public education (FAPE) that meets their unique needs and prepares them for further education, employment, and independent living." The tragic reality, however, is that the Department, states, and school districts are failing to provide a genuinely 'free' and appropriate education. Why?

In closing:
We emphasize the heart of our inquiry: the need for a clear 'yes' or 'no' answer to the crucial final question at hand. Does the Department's longstanding position comply with the law it is entrusted to uphold? This question carries immense weight impacting millions of children with disabilities nationwide. As a final recourse, I have reached out to Dr. Jill Biden, our First Lady of the United States, who shares a deep commitment to education. We anticipate Assistant Secretary Wright-Gallo will be hearing from the White House soon."

We will share this email at our website at https://www.rip-idea.info to raise awareness and support families nationwide.

Best,
Anil Daswani and Priti Daswani

Good morning Assistant Secretary Wright-Gallo,
I trust this message finds you well.

I am a parent to a child with a disability at an elementary public school in Wake county in North Carolina. Today marks one year since my initial email, dated August 3, 2023, where I asked a straightforward yes-or-no question regarding the U.S. Department of Education’s longstanding position on handling State complaints under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This question, which pertains to the OSEP memo on Dispute Resolution, directly impacts accountability for millions of children with disabilities nationwide. I followed up with reminder emails, most recently on April 2, 2024, which is included below for your reference. Here is the question I asked:

• "Does the Department's longstanding position, as stated in Qs B-12 of the OSEP memo, that allows an SEA to use its personnel to resolve complaints against itself, comply with IDEA 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(a)(1) -- knowing that it raises the issue of professional conflict of interest and directly challenges the integrity, impartiality, and objectivity of the investigation process, as outlined in IDEA's requirement for an 'independent on-site investigation'?"

Over the past year, I have engaged with numerous families about issues related to State complaints. It has become glaringly apparent that the Department’s longstanding position, as outlined in the OSEP memo, fundamentally contradicts federal law. The principle of an "independent on-site investigation," as mandated by IDEA, is inherently compromised when a state investigates itself. This conflict of interest undermines the impartiality and integrity required by the law. The OSEP memo is perpetuating a system that is not only in direct violation of the law but is also biased, fostering a self-protective culture that undermines accountability and fairness for families with disabilities. This issue is not unique to my state, as the memo applies nationwide, preventing accountability across the nation.

On February 5, 2024, I forwarded you a report from the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA), a respected nonprofit with over 3,100 members nationwide, highlighting similar concerns. I have attached the report for your reference. The COPAA report (pages 23 & 24) states:

• "Despite the promise of addressing systemic issues through the written state complaint process, current guidance seems to undermine the integrity and veracity of the state complaint process, including federal guidance that allows a state to decide whether to investigate a complaint filed against itself or to utilize outside, independent investigators. This provision is at odds with the impartiality required in other dispute resolution mechanisms, as it provides an incentive for a state to investigate itself -- creating an inherent conflict of interest that stacks the deck against parents receiving a fair and impartial investigation."

Your continued avoidance of this critical yes-or-no question over the past year is not merely an oversight; it reflects a systemic issue within your Department. It is disheartening to see that this flawed OSEP memo persists, setting a troubling precedent that emboldens states and school districts across the nation to evade accountability. I witnessed this again recently when my son's school violated federal and state laws regarding IEP meeting attendance, despite knowing fully well they were doing so.

My school district board, Wake County Public Schools, is also responsible for fostering a culture of evading accountability. When I filed my State complaint against the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NC DPI), it was under the purview of Ms. Thomas, a Senior Director who violated federal and state laws by refusing for NC DPI to open an independent investigation as mandated by IDEA into the state’s handling of my original State complaint alleging a systemic issue across Wake County Public Schools -- the largest in North Carolina. Meanwhile, Dr. Hudgens, the Section Chief for Policy, Monitoring and Audit at NC DPI refused to acknowledge my original State complaint as a systemic complaint. This despite OSEP confirming that the scope of possible State complaints includes those that allege systemic noncompliance by a public agency of having a practice applicable to a group of children that is inconsistent with Part B or the Part B regulations, and wherein the complaint is supported by naming one child (please refer to "Adoption of State Complaint Procedures" in the Federal Register at page 62 of the PDF).

Ms. Thomas then proceeded with having the state investigate itself, and as expected, absolved the state of wrongdoing, effectively shielding Wake County Public Schools from accountability. Subsequently, in your email dated July 7, 2023, which is attached for your reference, you confirmed that:

• "I can assure you that the expectation is for an independent on-site investigation to be conducted for all State complaints, including those filed against a State Education Agency (SEA), as required by IDEA."

Ms. Thomas has now been appointed as interim Assistant Superintendent of Special Education Services at Wake County Public Schools. It is troubling that our school board would select someone with a history of violating federal and state IDEA laws to lead special education services for the entire county. Meanwhile, Dr. Hudgens has been promoted to Senior Director at NC DPI. These appointments, alongside your Department’s flawed memo, sets a poor example and undermines the commitment to uphold the law and ensure accountability.

On this anniversary of my initial inquiry, I want to emphasize your continued evasion of accountability by not answering my critical yes-or-no question. A straightforward 'yes, the Department's position is compliant' is impossible to reconcile with IDEA’s requirement for an independent investigation. Conversely, a 'no, the Department's position is not compliant' would have significant repercussions, while necessitating the reopening of my State complaint against NC DPI as an independent investigation. The only reason your evasion has been possible is due to persistent questioning from a concerned parent. I challenge you to consider how you would handle this situation if you were testifying before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Would you be able to avoid a simple yes-or-no answer to the same question about your Department's longstanding position?

Your Department’s flawed memo has emboldened states and school districts to ignore federal law, leading to a cascade of unaddressed violations. This disservice to children with disabilities and their families across the nation sets a poor example of leadership and integrity. This is in complete contrast to what you said in your introductory blog in May 2023 at https://sites.ed.gov/osers/2023/05/meet-osers-assistant-secretary-glenna-wright-gallo/:

• "I want to improve things; I want to change things that are not working; I don’t want to admire problems; and I like to ensure that I will meet the requirements of whatever it is I want to do. That has really driven me to continue my education and learning in areas of interest," and

• "I think it’s imperative that each of us takes a stand — that we identify what needs to be improved and commit to making those changes personally and professionally. That’s the only way we are going to move ahead."

I took a stand as a concerned parent for not only my son but for all children with disabilities across the nation. It is essential to emphasize the significant responsibility of your role as the Assistant Secretary, where consistency in principles, both in words and actions, is of utmost importance. Yet, your only response has been to evade accountability for an entire year. It is time for you, your Department, the state of North Carolina, and the Wake County Public Schools board to reflect on the profound impact of your collective actions on the lives of millions of children and their families, both at present and in future.

Thank you for your time and attention. Meanwhile, I will share this email at https://www.rip-idea.info to continue raising awareness and supporting families nationwide.

Best,
Anil Daswani