OSPI outlines federal special‑education rules, timelines and monitoring responsibilities

Tanya May, assistant superintendent for special education at the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, told the House Education Committee on the purpose and major provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and how IDEA interacts with other federal laws.

May said IDEA "ensures that students with disabilities receive a free appropriate public education with specialized services through what's called an individualized education program or IEP." She contrasted IDEA with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and its 2015 update, the Every Student Succeeds Act, saying ESEA focuses on equity, academic achievement and accountability for all students while IDEA focuses on special‑education services and access to the general curriculum.

Committee members sought practical detail about eligibility, timelines and oversight. May summarized the common ground between the laws: both require inclusion of students with disabilities in statewide assessments and data collection on student performance. She emphasized the state and district duties under IDEA: OSPI oversees compliance and monitoring while districts develop and implement IEPs and provide services in the least restrictive environment.

May outlined the three statutory eligibility criteria the IEP team must document: that a student has a disability, that the disability causes an adverse impact on educational performance, and that the student needs specially designed instruction as a result. She said students remain eligible until they are reevaluated and found ineligible, they graduate with a regular high school diploma, they turn 22 (subject to a recent Ninth Circuit ruling affecting Washington), or a parent revokes consent in writing.

She explained key timelines in regulations: once a referral is made, a district has 25 school days to decide whether to evaluate and must notify parents in writing of that decision; with parental consent the district has 35 school days to complete an initial evaluation and meet on eligibility; if found eligible the district must obtain parental consent for initial services and develop an IEP within 30 calendar days.

On IEP content and implementation, May said an IEP must include anticipated location, frequency and duration of services, measurable annual goals based on present levels of performance, and how progress will be monitored and communicated with families. She noted the importance of "anticipated" frequency and the need for documentation known as prior written notice when services cannot be provided as offered. If services are not provided as required, compensatory education may be considered through complaint or monitoring processes.

Members asked about compliance monitoring and data. May described OSPI's dual approach: responsive dispute resolution (complaints, mediation, hearings) and proactive, risk‑based monitoring that includes annual reviews of selected districts, file reviews of IEPs, interviews with educators, providers, families and students, and on‑site observations. She said OSPI samples hundreds of IEPs during monitoring and follows up where districts fall short. May also said OSPI collects personnel and service data from districts but lacks a statewide IEP system that would allow easier aggregation of service‑level data; a feasibility study for a statewide IEP system will be available by June 30.

The committee raised concerns about language access and parent consent. Representative Ortiz‑Self said parents often do not receive an IEP in their primary language and that interpreters are sometimes inadequate. May said OSPI is increasing resources for translation and interpreter access and is considering ways to embed translation into a potential statewide IEP platform so districts would not bear the full cost.

On disproportionality and "overidentification," May said federal law requires states to examine district data disaggregated by race and ethnicity. Washington flags roughly 100 districts for further review on disproportionality; flagged districts must review policies and procedures, examine specific cases, and outline corrective actions and professional development. May said OSPI has not found a district that demonstrated disproportionality caused by inappropriate evaluation practices where corrective action has not already been required.

Committee members pressed whether private medical evaluations must be accepted. May said districts must consider information parents provide, including private evaluations, and that districts cannot require parents to pay for evaluations the district determines are necessary; if a medical evaluation is required by the team, the district must arrange and pay for it.

The exchange closed with Chair Santos stressing the constitutional and federal promise to provide access to general education for students with disabilities and urging stronger oversight, and with May describing OSPI's monitoring tools and the agency's mix of paperwork review and on‑site validation.

May said she was available to answer further questions and provided contact information.