The Arizona Department of Education has ruled that the Arizona State School for the Deaf and the Blind violated federal special education law in how it handled student placements while planning to close its Tucson campus and consolidate operations at a new facility in Oro Valley. The department’s decision follows a formal complaint that asserted the school made placement determinations for certain students before the legally required individualized review and decision-making process took place.
Sign for the Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind in Tucson; the Arizona Department of Education has ordered ASDB to revisit student placements after finding special education law violations.
The complaint was filed after families and advocates raised concerns related to the relocation plan announced earlier this year. Under the plan, ASDB told families that the new Oro Valley campus would primarily serve students who are deaf or hard of hearing, while many students who are blind, visually impaired, or enrolled in the school’s residential program would be returned to their home school districts. Advocates representing those families argued that the decisions were being made without the individualized review required by federal law and that, in many cases, students had originally been placed at ASDB because their local districts could not meet their educational needs.
Federal special education law — the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA — requires that decisions about where a student receives special education services be made by an Individualized Education Program team that includes the student’s parents and other relevant professionals. The law mandates that the IEP team evaluate the student’s unique needs and consider the full range of placement options before determining the most appropriate educational setting. The Arizona Department of Education’s investigation found that, for some students affected by the ASDB relocation plan, that individualized process did not occur.
State investigators concluded that the school had effectively decided in advance that certain programs and services would no longer be available, which had the effect of preventing IEP teams from fully considering all appropriate placement options for those students. The department’s findings specify that placement decisions cannot be premised on available programs, funding limitations, administrative convenience, or agency-wide policy priorities; instead, each student’s placement must be determined on the basis of that student’s individual educational needs. Diana Newmark, director of the University of Arizona’s Education Advocacy Clinic, said the outcome showed decisions had been made before families were given the opportunity to participate. "The outcome was determined before families ever had the opportunity to participate in the decision-making process," she said.
The Education Advocacy Clinic at the University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law began assisting families in January. Clinic staff spent several months attending meetings, gathering information and documentation, and researching the situation before filing a systemic complaint with the state Department of Education in May. The complaint prompted the state’s inquiry and ultimately led to the department’s determination that ASDB had not complied with the procedural protections and substantive requirements of federal special education law in the way it addressed placement for students tied to the relocation.
As part of the corrective action imposed by the department, a special monitor has been appointed to oversee ASDB’s compliance with the law and the terms of the ruling. The school has been ordered to reconvene placement teams for affected students and to ensure each team considers all appropriate educational options for the child. Those reconvened meetings and any resulting placement decisions are to occur by Aug. 28. The department’s directive places responsibility on the school to restore the individualized decision-making process and to ensure parents have meaningful participation in those decisions.
The state’s ruling does not require ASDB to reopen specific programs at the new Oro Valley campus, and ASDB officials have not publicly stated whether students who are blind, visually impaired, or part of the residential program ultimately will be served at the new location. Advocates for the families said the department’s action ensures that families will have the opportunity to participate in placement decisions rather than being presented with outcomes that were determined in advance. Newmark described the ruling as a significant victory for families and expressed hope that it will lead to longer-term improvements in access to specialized programs for students who rely on them. "Our hope is that those specialized programs are available to all the kids that need them," she said.
The department’s finding and corrective order mark the next step in a dispute that unfolded after the school announced its relocation plans. Families, advocates and the law clinic pushed back on how the transition was being handled, emphasizing the central role that individualized IEP team decisions must play when changes to programs or placement options are considered. With a special monitor now in place and a deadline set for reconvened IEP team meetings, the state has placed a clear procedural requirement on the school to reset placement processes and to document decisions that reflect each student’s unique needs rather than system-level determinations.
What happens next will hinge on the reconvened placement teams and the oversight provided by the monitor. The department’s order requires ASDB to provide those teams the opportunity to weigh all options and for parents to take part in the decision-making required under IDEA. The ruling stops short of prescribing specific program restorations at the Oro Valley campus, leaving open how the school ultimately configures services at its new site, but it does require that placement decisions be individualized and not preordained by administrative planning. Advocates say the immediate effect is to secure a procedural safeguard for families who feared decisions about their children’s education were being made without the legally required parental input and individualized review.
Disability Rights Arizona (DRAZ) had previously filed state and federal complaints against ASDB in late 2024 and 2025 that resulted in an ADE investigative report and corrective actions requiring a special monitor, an audit of student records, compensatory education for an affected student, staff training and other systemic remedies.
DRAZ said it sent a letter to state leaders in February 2026 warning that the planned Tucson campus closure and relocation could produce illegal discrimination and violations of IDEA, and the organization publicly applauded the University of Arizona Education Advocacy Clinic after the state complaint led to corrective action.
Local reporting has noted that ASDB serves roughly 2,000 students statewide and that attorneys have described the Arizona Department of Education’s decision to appoint a special monitor in ASDB-related matters as unusual, highlighting the significance of the agency’s enforcement in this situation.