When Special Education Compliance Is Called “Burdensome”
Why IDEA Compliance Is the Floor — Not the Ceiling
A parent-facing look at the Kentucky Auditor’s 2025 examination of KDE, superintendent feedback, OSEEL’s response, and the State’s IDEA general-supervision duty.
A Word Parents Should Pay Attention To
In July 2025, the Kentucky Auditor of Public Accounts released an extensive special examination of the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE). Deep in that report is a discussion that families of students with disabilities should not overlook.
The Auditor reported that superintendents expressed concern that OSEEL’s approach was “overly focused on compliance to the point of becoming burdensome” to local educational agencies’ ability to effectively serve students.
That word — burdensome — deserves thoughtful examination.
There is a legitimate conversation to be had about unnecessary paperwork, inefficient systems, duplicative processes, and whether compliance activities actually improve student outcomes. Families should want efficient systems too. Time spent completing paperwork that serves no educational purpose is time that could be spent serving students.
Why This Report Matters Now
The Kentucky Department of Education Special Examination was released by the Kentucky Auditor of Public Accounts on July 1, 2025. The examination was conducted pursuant to House Bill 825 (2024) and examined areas of the Kentucky Department of Education’s operations, including Kentucky’s special education system and the Office of Special Education and Early Learning (OSEEL). The full examination is a public document and was published by the Kentucky Auditor of Public Accounts. A copy is also publicly available through the Kentucky General Assembly. Within the report’s discussion of special education, page 242 documents superintendent feedback concerning OSEEL’s approach to compliance and also documents KDE staff’s position regarding the relationship between IDEA compliance and student outcomes. This means the concerns discussed in this article are not based on speculation, secondhand accounts, or statements attributed to unnamed sources outside the report. They come from a public examination of the Kentucky Department of Education released by the Commonwealth’s Auditor of Public Accounts.
Published: July 1, 2025
Publisher: Kentucky Auditor of Public Accounts
Report: Kentucky Department of Education Special Examination
Relevant special education discussion: Page 242
But IDEA compliance is not simply paperwork. For children with disabilities, compliance is where many of their federal protections live.
The question is not whether Kentucky should care about outcomes instead of compliance. Federal law does not give the State that choice. The real question is whether Kentucky can improve outcomes while continuing to fulfill the oversight and enforcement responsibilities IDEA places squarely on the State Educational Agency.
And, importantly, the Auditor’s report shows that OSEEL itself recognized that distinction.
What Did the Auditor Report About Superintendents?
The discussion families should pay particular attention to appears on page 242 of the report. The wording matters. The public report does not identify a particular superintendent as the speaker. For that reason, the careful and accurate description is that the Auditor reported superintendent feedback; it would be inappropriate to attribute the statement to every Kentucky superintendent or to a particular superintendent without the underlying records.
The Auditor reported that superintendents expressed concern that OSEEL’s approach was “overly focused on compliance to the point of becoming burdensome” to an LEA’s ability to effectively serve students.
The report further states that superintendent recommendations called for OSEEL to place greater emphasis on student outcomes and high-quality instruction rather than a compliance-first approach to special education supports for LEAs.
Source: Kentucky Department of Education Special Examination — p. 242.
OSEEL’s Position Was Also Documented — On the Same Page
The discussion does not end with the superintendent concerns. On the same page, the Auditor reports an important counterpoint from KDE staff. The Auditor’s report also documents the position coming from KDE/OSEEL staff.
Across KDE staff focus groups, the relationship between compliance and outcomes was described as viewing special education compliance as the “floor of opportunity” necessary for stronger student outcomes.
The report also states that responses from LEA special education directors reflected KDE’s message regarding compliance as the floor for outcomes.
That OSEEL position is essential to this discussion: compliance is the floor — not the ceiling. OSEEL’s stated position was not that checking compliance boxes is the ultimate goal of special education. It was that compliance creates the foundation from which stronger outcomes should be built.
Source: Kentucky Department of Education Special Examination — p. 242.
What Did Kentucky’s Special Education Directors Say?
The Auditor’s examination provides another important perspective: feedback from Kentucky’s local special education directors. Those survey results are particularly relevant because they show that concerns about student outcomes did not necessarily translate into a belief that KDE’s compliance and oversight functions were ineffective.
According to the Special Education Director Survey Results on page 402 of the Auditor’s report, substantial majorities of responding directors agreed that KDE’s monitoring and oversight were effective in several critical areas:
• 80% agreed or strongly agreed that KDE’s monitoring improves LEA compliance with federal special education requirements.
• 83% agreed or strongly agreed that KDE’s monitoring improves LEA compliance with state special education requirements.
• 76% agreed or strongly agreed that KDE makes fair and objective determinations regarding LEA compliance with federal special education requirements.
• 78% said the same regarding state special education requirements.
• 91% agreed or strongly agreed that KDE takes reasonable action to ensure identified noncompliance is corrected within one year.
• 84% agreed or strongly agreed that KDE makes fair and objective annual determinations regarding LEA special education performance.
• 92% agreed or strongly agreed that OSEEL shares special education information and resources in a way that is accessible to LEAs.
See Kentucky Department of Education Special Examination, p. 402.
Those numbers matter. They suggest that, from the perspective of many of the special education directors responding to the Auditor’s survey, KDE’s monitoring system was doing what an IDEA compliance system is supposed to do in several important respects: monitoring compliance, making compliance determinations, identifying noncompliance, and requiring correction.
The survey also identified a very different picture when directors were asked about outcomes.
Only 64% agreed or strongly agreed that KDE’s monitoring systems help improve the quality of IEPs, and only 50% agreed or strongly agreed that those monitoring systems help improve academic and other performance outcomes for students receiving special education services.
See Kentucky Department of Education Special Examination, p. 402.
That distinction may be one of the most important findings in this entire discussion. The data do not necessarily point to a compliance system that should simply do less monitoring. Instead, they raise a more difficult—and more meaningful—question:
How does Kentucky preserve strong IDEA compliance and State oversight while ensuring that those systems also contribute to better IEPs and better educational and functional outcomes for students with disabilities?
That is a fundamentally different question from whether compliance itself has become too burdensome.
Families should expect both.
We should expect the State to identify violations, require correction, conduct fair and objective oversight, and ensure that the procedural and substantive protections of IDEA are followed.
And we should expect that work to ultimately contribute to something greater than compliance on paper: meaningful access, appropriately individualized IEPs, effective services, and improved educational and functional outcomes for children. In other words, the Auditor’s own survey results reinforce the distinction at the heart of this discussion:
Compliance should not be the end goal. But it remains the floor from which better outcomes must be built.
How Can Compliance Be “Burdensome” When It Is the Floor?
From a district’s perspective, monitoring can require records, staff time, corrective action, data review, training, and follow-up. Those responsibilities can require substantial work. A State should absolutely care whether its monitoring systems are efficient, targeted, and useful.
Whether something requires work is not the same question as whether it is legally required.
IDEA was built with oversight in the structure. Congress did not leave each local school district to decide for itself whether it was adequately protecting students with disabilities. IDEA places responsibilities at multiple levels — including specific responsibilities on the State Educational Agency. In Kentucky, KDE is the State Educational Agency. Local school districts are LEAs. IDEA assigns the State a supervisory role over implementation of Part B.
IDEA Makes State Oversight a Duty — Not an Option
34 C.F.R. § 300.149 establishes the SEA’s responsibility for general supervision. The State is responsible for ensuring that IDEA Part B requirements are carried out and that educational programs for children with disabilities are under appropriate State supervision and meet applicable educational standards.
34 C.F.R. § 300.600 makes the monitoring and enforcement responsibility explicit. The State must monitor implementation of IDEA Part B, make annual determinations about LEA performance, enforce IDEA using appropriate enforcement mechanisms, and report annually on State and LEA performance.
IDEA Does Not Say: Compliance OR Outcomes
This may be the most important legal point in the entire discussion.
Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(b), the primary focus of State monitoring must be on both:
• Improving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities; and
• Ensuring that public agencies meet the program requirements under Part B of IDEA, with particular emphasis on requirements closely related to improving educational results.
Federal law therefore does not create a choice between compliance and outcomes.
It requires both.
That matters when discussing whether special education oversight has become too compliance-focused. IDEA itself directs the State to improve outcomes while also ensuring that public agencies meet Part B requirements.
And When the State Identifies Noncompliance?
IDEA does not stop at monitoring. Under 34 C.F.R. § 300.600(e), when a State identifies LEA noncompliance with Part B requirements, the State must ensure that the noncompliance is corrected as soon as possible and in no case later than one year after the State identifies it.
Again, the regulation uses mandatory language. This is part of the State’s federal responsibility, not an optional service KDE provides to districts or families.
Source: 34 C.F.R. § 300.600
Federal General-Supervision Guidance Goes Even Further
In July 2023, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), through OSEP, issued consolidated guidance addressing State general-supervision responsibilities under IDEA.
The guidance explains that a State’s general-supervision system includes monitoring designed both to improve educational and functional outcomes and to ensure that LEAs meet IDEA requirements. It also emphasizes that general supervision is broader than a single monitoring activity: dispute resolution, data systems, fiscal management, monitoring, technical assistance, and enforcement all operate within the State’s overall supervision system.
Most importantly for a discussion about the compliance “floor,” OSEP states in Question B-8 that a State may not establish a threshold below 100 percent when determining an LEA’s compliance with IDEA requirements.
If the State determines that an LEA’s compliance level is below 100 percent, OSEP explains that the State must issue a finding and require correction, subject to the limited pre-finding-correction circumstances described in the guidance.
See particularly Question A-1 regarding general supervision, Question B-8 regarding the 100-percent compliance threshold, and Question B-10 regarding correction of noncompliance.
What Does “Compliance” Actually Mean for a Child?
It is easy for the word compliance to sound bureaucratic. Parents experience the word differently when the requirement at issue belongs to their child.
• Compliance means evaluating a child when a disability is suspected.
• It means meaningful parent participation in decisions about the child’s education.
• It means developing an IEP based on the child’s unique needs.
• It means providing the specially designed instruction, related services, supplementary aids, and supports written into that IEP.
• It means educating students in the least restrictive environment consistent with IDEA.
• It means procedural safeguards designed to protect children and families.
• It means prior written notice when a district proposes or refuses certain actions involving identification, evaluation, educational placement, or FAPE.
• And it means identifying and correcting noncompliance when those protections are not provided.
Those protections are not administrative extras. They are part of the structure Congress created to protect the educational rights of children with disabilities.
There are still areas of Concern
There is another part of page 242 that should not be ignored simply because the “burdensome” language draws attention. The Auditor observed that Kentucky had developed what the report characterized as a robust and intentional system for ensuring LEA compliance with federal and State special education requirements, while students with disabilities had not demonstrated meaningful academic outcomes over time. The report then discusses achievement data and continuing gaps.
Source: Kentucky Department of Education Special Examination — p. 242 and the discussion that follows.
Families should care deeply about that concern.
Checking a compliance box is not enough. An IEP can exist on paper while a child continues to struggle. A meeting can occur without producing meaningful programming. A district can complete a form without actually addressing the student’s needs.
But poor outcomes do not make the underlying rights optional.
The answer to inadequate outcomes should be better implementation, better instruction, better data, stronger individualized programming, meaningful technical assistance, and accountability for results — built on the legal protections IDEA already guarantees.
Compliance Is the Floor — Not the Ceiling
This is where OSEEL’s own statement in the Auditor’s report matters so much: compliance is the floor of opportunity necessary for stronger student outcomes.
A floor is not where we want children to remain. It is the minimum foundation beneath them. Families should expect more than technical compliance. They should expect IEPs that are implemented, instruction that is individualized, progress that is measured, decisions that are based on data, and educational programs reasonably designed to enable meaningful progress.
But none of that requires us to weaken the floor.
The goal should be compliance + meaningful implementation + individualized programming + improved educational and functional outcomes.
Not compliance or outcomes.
Oversight Is Part of IDEA’s Design
School districts are Local Educational Agencies. KDE is Kentucky’s State Educational Agency. Those entities do not occupy identical positions within IDEA’s accountability structure. IDEA specifically assigns the State responsibility for general supervision, monitoring, annual LEA determinations, enforcement, and correction of identified noncompliance. That means effective State oversight will sometimes create additional work for an LEA. Records reviews take time. Corrective action takes time. Responding to monitoring takes time. Correcting an improperly implemented IEP takes time. Investigating credible allegations of IDEA noncompliance takes time.
Administrative burden and legal obligation, however, are not the same question.
For families, the more important question is this: Are Kentucky’s students with disabilities receiving the protections, services, supports, and educational opportunities IDEA guarantees them?
Where the answer is no, IDEA does not tell the State to look away because oversight is difficult. It assigns the State a responsibility to supervise, monitor, enforce, and ensure correction.
Families Should Pay Attention to What Happens Next
The Auditor’s report captures a significant policy tension in Kentucky special education.
• The Auditor reported superintendent concerns that OSEEL’s compliance emphasis had become burdensome.
• OSEEL/KDE staff maintained that compliance was the floor necessary for stronger student outcomes.
• The Auditor raised serious concerns about outcomes for Kentucky students with disabilities.
• Federal IDEA regulations continue to require the State to monitor both outcomes and compliance — and to enforce Part B requirements.
Those concepts should not be collapsed into a choice between supporting districts and protecting students.
Effective technical assistance matters. Efficient monitoring matters. High-quality instruction matters. Student outcomes matter. Collaboration matters.
And compliance with the federal rights of children with disabilities matters.
Families can support better systems while still insisting that the legal floor remain intact.
Because IDEA compliance is not the finish line. It is the floor from which meaningful educational opportunity is supposed to begin.
Primary Sources and Further Reading
See especially p. 242 for the superintendent feedback, the “burdensome” language, KDE/OSEEL’s compliance-as-the-floor position, and the beginning of the discussion of outcomes.
Background on the examination and its publication.
Federal regulation assigning the SEA responsibility for ensuring IDEA Part B requirements are carried out.
Federal regulation requiring monitoring, annual LEA determinations, enforcement, reporting, attention to outcomes and compliance, and correction of identified noncompliance.
See Question A-1 on general supervision; Question B-8 on the 100-percent compliance threshold; and Question B-10 on correction of noncompliance.
Educational information only.
This article is intended for parent education and advocacy information and is not legal advice. Families seeking advice about an individual legal matter should consult a licensed attorney.
Comments