Parents can choose to sign it.

What the mediator can’t do under IDEA is tell parents that signing a pre-mediation agreement or confidentiality document is required before they can participate in mediation.

That is the problem here.

The Problem

IDEA does not allow public agencies to make signing a separate pre-mediation agreement to mediate or confidentiality document a condition of participating in mediation. Between 2020 and today, U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has found or flagged this issue in multiple states and required corrective action.

Yet Virginia Department of Education’s (VDOE) paper fix has not consistently made it into practice.

In a 2026 email to a parent and Prince William County Public Schools, a Virginia special education mediator stated: “You must sign, date, and return the Agreement to Mediate prior to the day of the mediation.” Later in the same communication, the mediator told the parties to read the agreement to mediate before mediation, said they “will be expected to agree to it and return it,” and stated that “[a]ll participants are bound by this agreement.”

Read more

Older articles are being added gradually, with updates like this highlighting what’s new to Substack for readers who may have missed them on the original site. This was one of the larger gaps between updates, so I especially appreciate your patience. About 50 new articles were written and published during that time period and balancing the new, the old, and life in general is sometimes challenging.

When I first started transferring over older articles, I began reposting from the most recent pieces, but as cross-links led backward, I headed to 2020 and started forward from there. As of today, all 2025 articles published prior to the switch to Substack are live, nearly all 2020 and 2024 articles are live, and about half of 2023’s and a handful from 2021 and 2022 are live. In addition, I’m checking old links since U.S. Department of Education’s and Virginia Department of Education’s sites were redesigned along the way, leaving broken links behind.

Documents such as state complaints and FOIA responses—previously embedded within articles—are now posted individually on the State Complaints and FOIA pages for easier browsing. Each complaint page links to related articles for added context.

Thanks for your patience!

Archive Articles Added to Substack Between October 18, 2025 and May 1, 2026

They file them because something has already gone wrong.

A service was not provided. An evaluation was not completed. An IEP was not implemented. A child was denied what federal and state law require. By the time a parent files a state complaint with Virginia Department of Education (VDOE), the parent is usually already exhausted, frustrated, and trying to preserve a record before timelines expire.

So when VDOE fails to send a Notice of Complaint (NOC) in response to a parent’s state complaint, this is not a harmless “oops.”

It is a breakdown in one of the few oversight systems parents are told to use.

And it happened again.

Another Complaint, Another County, Another Failure

January 31, 2025, I wrote about VDOE issuing a November 26, 2024, Letter of Findings (LOF) in which VDOE found itself in noncompliance with IDEA. That earlier complaint involved VDOE’s own handling of a state complaint against Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) in Virginia and its failure to provide the complainant the required response to her complaint (the NOC), even though it did provide a NOC to FCPS. VDOE’s “correction” was to state that the matter had been “self-corrected” and that no further corrective action was required.

Now, about a year and a half later, another parent—this time in Prince William County Public Schools—experienced another missing NOC.

According to records provided, the parent filed her complaint March 19, 2026, and submitted a supplement the next day. She then sent multiple follow-up communications to VDOE. The NOC was not issued until she asked about it.

VDOE’s explanation?

“Due to technological error, the Notice of Complaint was not sent.”

Read more

The most consequential exchange on day six didn’t come from a lawyer. It came from the hearing officer. In a moment that felt more like a parent’s challenge than a typical question from a hearing officer, she turned to the school’s speech‑language pathologist (SLP) and asked two simple things: “Why haven’t you observed him with his CRP (communication regulation partner)?” and “What harm would it have done to observe?” The SLP acknowledged she had not watched him and conceded that observing wouldn’t have done any harm. She simply didn’t believe in the letterboard method. That exchange set the tone for the rest of the day’s testimony, which ranged from speech therapy and occupational therapy to the nuts and bolts of the IEP process.

Another noteworthy exchange occurred later in the day, when attorney Grace Kim confronted the district’s procedural support liaison (PSL) with a startling fact: the district’s own data put the student at a pre‑kindergarten math level last school year, yet this year he is enrolled in general education geometry. Despite this breathtaking leap, the PSL refused to say the earlier IEP—based on that lower data—was inappropriate. Her unwillingness to acknowledge such a clear mismatch between the student’s demonstrated ability and his goals proved just as consequential as the hearing officer’s questions to the SLP.

The SLP’s Testimony and the Hearing Officer’s Questions

The SLP began by describing her history with the student. She initially provided four hours of speech‑language services each month—two hours of push‑in and two hours of pull‑out support—but by the 2025 IEP meeting the team had cut those services to two hours. She said this reduction was justified because her focus had shifted to “independent communication,” working with the student to use a speech‑generating device to offer identifying information and ask for help. Later, she testified that the parents had consented to a reduction in both goals and service hours and reiterated that two hours were sufficient.

Much of the morning focused on her professional skepticism toward spelling‑to‑communicate. Citing guidance from the American Speech‑Language‑Hearing Association (ASHA), she maintained that spelling‑to‑communicate is not an evidence‑based practice and does not guarantee authorship. Although two teachers, the school’s special‑education department head, and the student’s CRP all said they had no doubt his answers were his own, she said she did not believe it. In her view, any work produced with a CRP was kin to turning in someone else’s homework. Yet, under cross‑examination she conceded she had never observed the student using his CRP and acknowledged that none of his teachers had expressed concerns about the authenticity of his work.

At the end of her questioning, the hearing officer probed this further:

Hearing officer: What harm would it have done for you to observe him?

Speech‑language pathologist: It probably wouldn’t have done anything. I just didn’t. I don’t believe in it, and I didn’t.

This exchange captured the heart of the dispute. The hearing officer gave the SLP an opportunity to explain why she hadn’t watched the student spell, and the SLP admitted there was no downside—she simply didn’t believe in it. In other words, she dismissed what other staff and family members had experienced and refused to gather firsthand evidence because her mind was already made up.

That is particularly striking given Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) prohibits predetermination and given she continued to insist the student’s CRP‑assisted work wasn’t really his. By declining to observe the student and still claiming it wasn’t his work, the SLP revealed a closed‑minded approach that prioritized professional doctrine over individualized evidence.

Earlier in her testimony, a similar exchange made the same point even more bluntly:

Read more

What Else You Need to Know

What She Did Say

During her viral comment, Mehlman‑Orozco alleged that division officials offered her a $20,000 settlement on the condition that she drop her complaints and sign a nondisclosure agreement that would prevent her and her student from discussing alleged violations. She claimed she recorded a conversation with a teacher who acknowledged violations of her daughter’s rights but warned that she would deny the conversation if questioned. Mehlman‑Orozco further asserted that instead of addressing the problems, the board spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys to bury the complaints while offering a “pittance” settlement to secure her silence.

The parent also said former board member Willie Deutsch texted her that the administration isn’t prioritizing students. Mehlman-Orozco provided Special Education Action the following screenshot.

At the time of this writing, to my knowledge the school board has not publicly responded to these specific allegations, and no independent verification of the alleged settlement offer has been made public. In a previous media statement, the division stated, “Due to privacy laws, PWCS does not comment on any specific student and does not comment on ongoing litigation. PWCS remains committed to providing an inclusive and excellent education for every student.”

What She Didn’t Say

She’s successfully filed and prevailed in numerous state complaints against the division—as have numerous other parents within the same division. (See the “Additional Reading” list at the end of this article to access complaints, due process documents, and other information.)

She also served as the advocate for another family during a due‑process hearing. The hearing officer ruled in favor of the parents and ordered PWCS to reimburse private‑school tuition. When the district appealed, U.S. District Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. upheld the decision and specifically noted that “at the hearing, the Parents were represented by Dr. Kimberly Mehlman‑Orozco, a non‑attorney advocate”.

Mehlman‑Orozco didn’t mention other spending by the division and the invoices obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. According to the invoices, the law firm Sands Anderson invoiced PWCS more than $530,000 in the months leading up to the due process appeal the county filed against the family Mehlman-Orozco represented (and lost). Below is a breakdown of some of the spending between January and November 2025. Many of the larger invoices are unrelated to Mehlman-Orozco’s family. Without access to the itemized invoices, it is impossible to determine exactly how much of the spending related to the appeal. Nonetheless, the amounts illustrate how legal costs can accumulate:

For professional services rendered through January 31, 2025:

• $105.00, Invoice No. 711055

• $7,160.00, Invoice No. 710795

• $164,100.19, Invoice No. 708411

• $1,848.70, Invoice No. 708412

For professional services rendered through February 28, 2025:

• $175.00, Invoice No. 716441

• $167,214.97, Invoice No. 713877

• $20,438.06, Invoice No. 716491

For professional services rendered through March 31, 2025:

• $1,053.00, Invoice No. 721879

• $2,449.82, Invoice No. 719259

For professional services rendered through April 30, 2025:

• $240.00, Invoice No. 724693

• $351.00, Invoice No. 727312

For professional services rendered through May 31, 2025:

• $60.00, Invoice No. 729922

• $2,449.82, Invoice No. 719259

• $960.00, Invoice No. 732923

For professional services rendered through June 30, 2025:

• $5,356.00, Invoice No. 741678

For professional services rendered through July 31, 2025:

• $3,027.00, Invoice No. 747502

For professional services rendered through August 31, 2025:

• $15,058.00, Invoice No. 753396

• $8,036.48, Invoice No. 753393

For professional services rendered through September 30, 2025:

• $21,205.00, Invoice No. 764556

• $4,221.00, Invoice No. 764553

For professional services rendered through October 31, 2025:

• $50,397.25, Invoice No. 770077

• $3,157.50, Invoice No. 770080

• $8,554.74, Invoice No. 770075

• $4,886.50, Invoice No. 770079

For professional services rendered through November 30, 2025:

• $30,229.30, Invoice No. 775296

• $3,038.00, Invoice No. 772759

• $6,976.50, Invoice No. 775293

• $531.00, Invoice No. 775300

• $546.00, Invoice No. 775301

Final Words

Dr. Kimberly Mehlman‑Orozco’s viral comment and ongoing advocacy highlight a broader struggle between parents and a school district over transparency and compliance with special‑education laws. Her remarks have found a larger audience. As she prepares to address the board again, families will be watching to see whether the district engages with her concerns and the concerns of others—or continues to litigate them.

• Prince William County Public Schools

Fee:

• to be added at a later date

FOIA Filer:

• PWCPS Parent

FOIA Request:

• to be added at a later date

FOIA Request and Time Period:

• to be added at a later date

FOIA Response:

Read more

The Database is Incomplete

Special Education Action has long tracked ED’s oversight reports and immediately noticed big gaps. Records begin in 2018 and earlier years such as 2016 and 2017 are absent. Worse, several states and territories don’t appear at all. For instance, OSEP issued a groundbreaking DMS monitoring report to Texas in 2016, which was followed by years of continued monitoring, yet visitors can’t even select that state in the drop‑down menu. Other states are listed but their histories are truncated. For example, Virginia’s entry shows only 2024 documents, omitting reports from 2020 and 2022. These omissions suggest the database remains a work in progress, but nothing on the page explains that to users.

What is DMS?

ED’s Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) monitors how each state implements Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Under the DMS system, OSEP reviews each state’s general‑supervision system and issues reports and letters—commonly called DMS reports and status letters—that identify noncompliance, outline corrective actions, and describe areas of progress and/or continue noncompliance.

These documents may be technical, but they matter because they reveal whether a state is meeting its obligations and they often reflect input from parents and advocates.

What Changed in 2024–2026?

In 2024 ED started redesigning its website. Special Education Action previously documented how the overhaul broke links and caused oversight documents to vanish. By early 2025, broken links occupied spaces where federal oversight had lived.

ED’s own 2023 report to Congress under the 21st Century Integrated Digital Experience Act notes that ED plans to remove roughly 100,000 URLs from ED.gov and “has invested in data cleansing activities that will support expedited and effective content migration.” In other words, the agency is actively pruning its web presence even while families are searching for critical oversight records.

Redesigning a Department on the Chopping Block

The redesign didn’t happen in a vacuum. Federal agencies must comply with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which require public websites to be accessible to people with disabilities. ED’s accessibility statement says it continually modifies its sites to meet those requirements. In 2024 U.S. Department of Justice issued a final rule clarifying that state and local governments must meet web‑accessibility standards. It’s plausible that the redesign was an attempt to modernize ED’s sprawling web presence and comply with these mandates.

Yet the timing is odd because the Trump administration has been moving to dismantle ED. March 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order to abolish ED and the administration has been cutting staff and transferring programs to other agencies. Why invest in a major website overhaul while tearing the agency apart?

Regardless of the motive, the result is a confusing juxtaposition. Families and advocates are asked to navigate a redesigned website for a department that the administration has pledged to abolish.

Why This Matters

1. Access to oversight documents is disrupted. The 2024 redesign broke links and removed pages. Parents and advocates lost visibility into how their state is performing under IDEA and what corrective actions are required.

2. The database isn’t complete. Early years are missing, several states aren’t listed at all, and some states show only partial records. Families still can’t access many past reports and must rely on their own archives or the willingness of state officials to share documents. In my neck of the woods, Virginia disputed ED’s 2020 report and later failed to post all subsequent reports—even while touting how well it worked with OSEP. (But I digress…)

3. Few people are talking about it. To my knowledge, no major news outlets have reported on the disappearance of DMS reports. Without coverage, many families may not even know these oversight documents exist.

4. Digital copies are unofficial. Even once the database is populated, ED notes that digital reports are for reference only and advises users to request official hard‑copy versions through their state’s Monitoring and State Improvement Planning (MSIP) contact. Anyone who has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with ED knows that “quick” and “timely” are not words often associated with ED’s turnaround times.

How to Stay Informed

• Use archived copies. Special Education Action is archiving DMS reports and status letters so families can access them even when ED links are broken.

• Check the new ED.gov page regularly. ED may populate the database over time. Until then, the page serves as an official location for future DMS reports.

• Contact your state’s MSIP representative. For official hard‑copy reports or for reports not yet posted online, reach out to your state’s MSIP contact as suggested by ED.

• File public‑records requests. IDEA and state open‑records laws allow families to request monitoring reports and correspondence. If your state or MSIP contact don’t provide a report, submit a FOIA request or a state‑level public‑records request.

Final Words

The DMS system is a vital part of IDEA’s accountability framework. When ED began modernizing its website it inadvertently hid—or removed—many records that families and advocates rely on. The new DMS reports page is a step toward restoring access and is easier to navigate. But . . .

It still lacks significant data. Until ED fully populates the database and clarifies its plans for modernization, communities must remain vigilant, archiving documents, sharing information, and reminding officials that transparency is essential.

This milestone capped a review process that had started more than three years earlier. OSEP’s monitoring activities that took place in November 2022 led to the April 24, 2024, DMS report.

The 2024 DMS Monitoring Report

The April 24, 2024, DMS monitoring report identified six findings of noncompliance with IDEA Part B.

April 24, 2024: DMS Monitoring Report

807KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OSEP concluded that the state’s general supervision system was not reasonably designed to identify all instances of noncompliance; the state was not verifying that LEAs corrected the noncompliance it did find; and it was not considering all required compliance indicators and valid data when issuing annual determinations for LEAs. In addition, the monitoring team found that SCDE’s mediation procedures did not ensure mediators were selected on a random or impartial basis, that its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document described mediation in a way that could discourage its use, and that the state’s policies regarding the reasonable progress flexibility for significant disproportionality were inconsistent with IDEA.

OSEP’s report imposed strict timelines. Within 90 days South Carolina had to submit updated policies, procedures and training materials addressing each finding. Within one year of the report’s date the state was required to provide evidence that the corrective actions had been fully implemented.

December 5, 2024: Partial Closeout

In a status letter dated December 5, 2024, OSEP acknowledged progress based on materials submitted on July 23 and September 13, 2024, and following an October 15, 2024, conference call.

December 5, 2024: Status Letter

316KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The letter noted that SCDE had updated its policies to ensure mediators are selected on a random, rotational or otherwise impartial basis and had revised its FAQ and website to describe mediation consistently with federal requirements and to remove language implying that participants must sign a confidentiality pledge. Those changes resolved the mediation‑related findings.

Most other findings, however, remained open. OSEP was still reviewing South Carolina’s revised policies on general supervision, verification of noncompliance corrections, annual determinations and significant disproportionality. The letter reminded the SCDE that evidence of implementation was required as soon as possible, despite the fact that initial deadlines had already passed.

March 25, 2026: Closeout Letter

The March 25, 2026, closeout letter refers to additional submissions from April 2 and April 21, 2025, and states that all remaining findings have been resolved.

March 25, 2026: Closeout Letter

366KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The letter does not explain why nearly a year elapsed between those submissions and the issuance of the closeout.

It does confirm that SCDE’s revised monitoring policies—including timely issuance of findings, monitoring beyond SPP/APR indicators and comprehensive notification content—are consistent with IDEA. OSEP also accepted evidence showing that the state now verifies that LEAs reach full compliance, considers all required indicators when making annual determinations, has corrected its mediation procedures and public guidance, and has aligned its reasonable‑progress standard for significant disproportionality with federal requirements. With these issues resolved the monitoring report was officially closed.

OSEP used the closeout letter to stress that maintaining transparent systems for identifying and correcting noncompliance and protecting parental rights through effective dispute‑resolution processes is essential to improving outcomes for children with disabilities.

Final Words

Roughly three and a half years past between OSEP’s monitoring activities and the final closeout letter—and it took multiple rounds of policy revisions and evidence submissions to convince OSEP that the state had fully implemented all corrective actions.

This timeline raises questions about the capacity of state education agencies to self‑monitor and suggests that ongoing federal oversight remains vital.

It also raises the question of why there isn’t a different system for ensuring corrective actions are implemented nationwide as they are identified within each state. For example, the inconsistent mediation language and practices in South Carolina were addressed in Virginia years prior. If one state is held accountable, why aren’t others held accountable at the same time? Why was there an almost four-year gap between when OSEP called out Virginia and South Carolina on similar noncompliant mediation practices?

For families and advocates, the closure of the DMS report is welcome news but not a guarantee of flawless practice.

March 25, 2026: DMS Monitoring Report, Part C

628KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

What OSEP Found

OSEP’s DMS review covered early‑intervention services, monitoring and improvement, data systems, fiscal management, and dispute resolution.

The report concluded that Utah’s Baby Watch Early Intervention Program (BWEIP) is not compliant with IDEA requirements across all of these areas. Key findings include:

Provision of Early Intervention Services

1.1 OSEP finds that the State cannot ensure that all early intervention services as identified on the IFSPs of infants and toddlers with disabilities are individualized to meet the needs of the child and family as determined by the IFSP team, as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.13(a), 303.343, and 303.344(d), and that early intervention services are provided to all eligible infants and toddlers with disabilities and their families in a timely manner as required by 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.112 and 303.342(e).

1.2 OSEP finds that the State does not ensure a timely comprehensive, multidisciplinary evaluation and assessment of each child under the age of three who is referred for evaluation or early intervention services under IDEA Part C and suspected of having a disability, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1221e-3, 1435(a)(3), 1436(a)(1), 1436(a)(3), 1439(a)(6) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.24(a) and 303.321.

1.3 OSEP finds that the State does not ensure that Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) include all the required content listed in 20 U.S.C. § 1436(d) and 34 C.F.R. § 303.344(d).

Monitoring and Improvement

2.1 OSEP finds that the State is not timely identifying noncompliance when monitoring EIS programs or providers, as required by 34 U.S.C. §§ 1416(a), 1434, 1435(a)(10), 1442, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120, and 303.700 through 303.708.

2.2 OSEP finds that the State is not verifying that the EIS program or provider is correctly implementing the specific regulatory requirements (i.e., achieved 100 percent compliance with the relevant IDEA requirements) based on a review of updated data and information as required by 34 C.F.R. § 303.700(e).

2.3 OSEP finds that the State does not make annual determinations about the performance of each EIS program in the State, in accordance with 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(d)(2), 1434, and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.700(a)(2) and 303.703(b).

Data

3.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a reasonably designed system to collect valid and reliable data to report annually to the Department under 34 C.F.R. § 303.702(b)(2) Indicator 1, established by the Secretary for the State performance plans, as required by 20 U.S.C. §§ 1416(a)(3)(A) and (b), 1435(a)(15), 1437(b)(4), 1442, Sections 616 and 618 (as modified by IDEA Section 642), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.124, 303.224, and 303.701(c).

Fiscal Management: Single Line of Responsibility

4.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to meet the requirements under 34 C.F.R. § 303.120, to ensure fiscal compliance with the Statewide system of payments policy requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.520 through 303.521.

4.2 OSEP finds that the State does not have a general supervision system that is reasonably designed to ensure fiscal compliance with Federal fiscal requirements, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.120, 303.226 and 303.501, and 2 C.F.R. §§200.403 and 200.303.

Dispute Resolution

5.1 OSEP finds that the State does not have a Statewide system that includes written procedures for the timely administration of complaints through mediation, State complaint procedures, and due process hearings consistent with the IDEA regulations in 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(e), 1439(a)(1) and (a)(8), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.430(a), 303.431, 303.432 through 303.434, and 303.435 through 303.438.

5.2 OSEP finds that the State’s procedural safeguards and prior written notice form are inconsistent with the requirements in 34 C.F.R. §§ 303.400 and 303.421(b)(3).

What Happens Next

OSEP gave Utah concrete deadlines. For example, regarding individualized services, the state must submit a corrective action plan by June 23, 2026, that includes a “root‑cause analysis of how the State funding structure impacts the level of early intervention services provided in the State” and steps to mitigate those effects. Evidence of implementation is due no later than March 25, 2027. Similar timelines apply to other findings. The state must revise policies, improve data collection, train staff and demonstrate that local programs correct noncompliance.

Given the absence of mainstream news coverage and ED press releases, parents and advocates will need to monitor these deadlines themselves. You can read the full report on the U.S. Department of Education’s website.

Why This Matters for Families

Early‑intervention services set the foundation for infants and toddlers with disabilities. When services are delayed or inadequate, children can miss critical developmental windows. The DMS report makes clear that Utah’s system isn’t meeting federal standards, but it also offers a roadmap for improvement. Families should not have to dig through federal documents to learn whether their state is following the law. Yet, until news outlets start covering these reports, and ED and the state education agencies issue press releases or other alerts, that may be the reality.

According to the agency’s press release, the district voted to discontinue its Elementary Life Skills program for the 2026‑2027 school year, then reassigned students to classrooms about 30 miles away—without reevaluating the students or notifying families.

OCR said it will examine whether the district’s actions violate Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which protect students from discrimination based on disability

For families in NHISD, this investigation signals that federal officials are paying attention and could ultimately require the district to restore services or provide compensatory education. Yet parents should be aware that OCR’s disability‑discrimination investigations often take years to complete. The hope for NHISD students is that the investigation is completed within record time and leads to prompt remedies.

Background

August 8, 2024, a parent began making requests for curriculum materials from Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) for Virtual Loudoun classes. The request covered everything from videos to lesson plans but explicitly excluded tests and exams. LCPS refused to provide any of the 125,000 pages of materials, citing copyright restrictions and sections of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. Even after the parent narrowed the request to Algebra 2/Trigonometry materials for purposes like “criticism, comment, teaching, and potentially news reporting,” LCPS maintained that copyright concerns and the sole possession exemptions applied.

Lesson Plans Are Not Automatically Private

Under FOIA, scholastic records are those directly related to an individual student. Lesson plans, by contrast, generally describe what teachers intend to teach and are not inherently about a particular student. FOIA does contain a “sole possession” clause, derived from the federal FERPA law, that protects personal memory aids that are never shared.

The Council emphasizes that only truly personal notes—kept solely as memory aids and not shared with anyone but a substitute—are exempt. Once a lesson plan is used for routine instructional or administrative purposes or shared beyond the teacher’s private use, it no longer qualifies as a “sole possession” record and must be disclosed. If a lesson plan contains student names and/or other personally identifiable information (PII), the school should redact those details and release the rest.

FOIA’s Presumption of Openness

Virginia’s FOIA policy establishes a presumption of openness for all public records. The law states that meetings and records are presumed open unless a specific exemption is properly invoked. Any exemptions must be narrowly construed to maximize public access. In other words, public bodies must identify and justify any exemptions rather than defaulting to secrecy.

Copyright and Fair Use

LCPS leaned heavily on copyright law to block disclosure. The Council explained that there is no blanket FOIA exemption for copyrighted materials. While copyright holders enjoy exclusive rights, federal law’s fair‑use doctrine allows limited use for criticism, comment, teaching and news reporting. Whether fair use applies is a legal question for courts, but the opinion notes that LCPS only sought the copyright owner’s permission and did not appear to evaluate fair‑use possibilities.

Interestingly, the parent’s subsequent FOIA request uncovered a contract granting LCPS a perpetual, royalty‑free license to reproduce, publish and authorize noncommercial use of the instructional materials. This suggests LCPS may have more discretion to share the materials than it acknowledged, though the Council noted that “without more context, key provisions of this contract remain unclear, and could be for a court to decide.”

Tests and Examinations

LCPS cited FOIA’s test/examination exemption to justify withholding some records. The statute defines tests and examinations as tools used to evaluate students, employees or licensees. Because the parent specifically excluded tests and exams, this exemption likely applies only to scoring keys or documents that would jeopardize the security of an exam.

Why Parents Should Care

Transparency in Curriculum

Schools can’t automatically hide lesson plans or licensed course materials behind “scholastic records” arguments. That transparency helps parents monitor whether instruction aligns with their child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP).

Fair‑Use Considerations

While copyright law still matters, schools must consider whether releasing materials for criticism, comment, news reporting or teaching may be allowed under fair‑use principles.

Redaction, Not Wholesale Denial

If lesson plans exist and contain student‑specific notes, schools should redact that information and disclose the rest.

Final Words

The Council’s AO‑02‑26 opinion highlights the tension between protecting legitimate rights and fulfilling the public’s right to know. For parents, especially those navigating special education, the takeaway is clear. Don’t accept blanket denials at face value. FOIA requires schools to justify withholding records and to err on the side of disclosure. Lesson plans are not automatically private, and if they exist, they often must be shared—minus any confidential student details.

March 18, 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) entered into a resolution agreement with Grundy County Schools (GCS) in Tennessee. Six days later, March 24, 2026, OCR issued its letter of findings to GCS. The underlying complaint, filed in 2022, alleged that the district discriminated against a student with a disability by excluding him from school activities and changing his Individualized Education Program (IEP) in ways that restricted his participation.

The Complaint and Allegations

A parent filed the complaint on behalf of her son, a student with disabilities attending a school in GCS. According to the letter, the parent alleged the following:

• Exclusion from activities: After an IEP meeting on 26 October 2022, school staff revised the student’s IEP to bar him from any extracurricular or school‑wide events. The complainant alleged that this caused the student to miss his brother’s classroom Halloween party and other school activities.

• Sensory‑room isolation: During the October 28, 2022, Halloween party, the student remained in the “Sensory Room” because “the Principal, the Lead Teacher, and the Special Education Supervisor informed [the parent] that the Student was agitated that day and they felt it would not be a good idea” for him to attend the party.

• Reduced school day and loss of physical education: November 10, 2022, the “School changed the Student’s behavioral plan to shorten his school day and discontinue his physical education class because it creates over stimulation and causes him to act out.”

The complainant argued these actions were discriminatory and denied her son a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

OCR’s Investigation

OCR looked at whether the district treated the student differently because of his disability and whether he was denied FAPE. Investigators reviewed the student’s IEP and amendments, policies governing use of the Sensory Room, daily schedules, and meeting notes. They also interviewed the parent, the district’s supervisor of special education, and the school principal.

After examining the evidence, OCR determined there was enough proof of discrimination in one allegation but not in the others.

Key Facts of the Case

OCR’s letter provides a detailed timeline of the student’s school year and the events leading up to the complaint:

• August 11, 2022, the students IEP was developed. It states that the student “may participate in any extracurricular and nonacademic activities for which he is qualified at the discretion of his parents as long as all district and school rules are followed.”

• Early 2022‑23 school year: The student experienced behavior incidents related to his disability.

• September 9, 2022: the student’s “IEP team held a manifestation determination meeting and determined that the Student’s behavior was a manifestation of his disability.”

• September 22, 2022: The student’s special‑education class was scheduled to attend a school‑wide event. The parent volunteered at the event to help with her student, but noticed her son never arrived. She later learned that the principal “decided it would be “too hard on [Student]” to attend the event and decided to not allow the Student or his class to attend the event.”

• Some staff later suggested the decision was made to avoid overstimulating him. The parent denied ever requesting that her son be kept from the event and said the school did not offer an alternative activity. “The Counselor further stated that the Student’s class had a substitute teacher that day, and that the Counselor initially instructed the teacher to “hold the kids from the water day event” because she was concerned about following the Complainant’s directions concerning the Student being overly excited. The Counselor stated that her intention was to get back with the substitute teacher later that morning to discuss the situation further, but that she did not do so until 2:00 PM when the Complainant attempted to pick up the Student from his class to attend the event. The Counselor stated that she spoke with the Complainant later that same day, acknowledging the oversight, and that the Complainant was kind and understanding during their conversation.”

• October 25–26, 2022: In response to ongoing behavior incidents, the district held another manifestation determination and an IEP meeting. During the 25 October meeting the team amended the IEP to exclude the student from all extracurricular and school‑wide activities. The parent objected to this change. The next day, the district amended the IEP again to state that the student could participate in extracurricular activities and school‑wide events “with supervision”

• October 28, 2022: The student was initially permitted to attend his brother’s in‑class Halloween party. When staff observed that he was agitated and had multiple aggressive outbursts, they decided he should remain in the Sensory Room for more than an hour during the party.

• November 10, 2022: After continued incidents, the IEP team held a meeting and decided to shorten the student’s school day and to abbreviate his physical‑education class and move it to the end of the day.

• The parent disagreed and later placed the student in a homebound program for part of the school day.

OCR’s Conclusions

OCR found that excluding the student from the September 22 event amounted to disability‑based discrimination. He had not misbehaved that day, and the district lacked evidence that he posed a safety risk. Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, schools cannot bar a student with a disability from activities unless necessary to provide equal opportunity or ensure safety. In this instance, OCR concluded the exclusion was unjustified.

For the Halloween party and sensory‑room use, OCR determined there was insufficient evidence of discrimination. The student was placed in the Sensory Room following behavior issues, consistent with his IEP, and remained under adult supervision. Likewise, OCR found the decision to shorten his school day and adjust his physical‑education schedule did not violate civil‑rights laws because it was based on specialist recommendations and the parent was offered procedural safeguards. Disputes over educational decisions are generally addressed through special‑education due process rather than OCR enforcement.

Remedy and Resolution Agreement

To address the discriminatory exclusion from the September 22 event, the district entered into a Resolution Agreement with OCR. Key provisions include:

“Training:

“Within 60 days of the execution of this Agreement, the District will provide Section 504 and Title II training to District faculty, staff, and administrators who have responsibility for coordinating, managing or providing students with non-academic and/or extracurricular services and activities. The training will emphasize that the District shall provide non-academic and extracurricular services and activities in such a manner as is necessary to afford students with disabilities an equal opportunity for participation in such services and activities. The training will also cover the general prohibition of different treatment on the basis of disability.

“Reporting Requirement:

“Within fifteen (15) days of the completion of the training described above, the District will provide OCR with the date(s) of the training session(s), the title and credentials of the trainer(s), a copy of the materials used in the training, and signed and dated sign-in sheets that include the name of staff members and their titles who attended the training sessions. The District will also provide its alternate plans to provide the training to District faculty, staff, and administrators who were unable to attend the scheduled training session(s).”

Final Words

This case underscores several important principles for school districts and families navigating special‑education services:

• Equal access matters. Students with disabilities have the right to participate in school events and activities. Excluding a child because of disability‑related behaviors is discriminatory unless there is clear, individualized evidence that it is necessary for safety.

• Parents have a voice. Families should be involved in IEP decisions and can challenge changes they believe are inappropriate. When disagreements arise, due process hearings provide a formal avenue for resolution.

• Training is essential. Staff who supervise non‑academic activities need training on accommodating students with disabilities and avoiding assumptions about behavior.

• Documentation protects everyone. Keeping thorough records of IEP meetings, behavioral plans, and decisions helps ensure student rights are respected and can support the district if a complaint arises.

Based on the wording of the findings, it’s assumed the complaint was filed by a parent and/or other legal guardian. The complainant alleged that WCS failed to timely evaluate the student for a Section 504 plan after the complainant notified staff that the student “was diagnosed with [redacted content] and [redacted content], that she has incurred absences as a result and would be undergoing an upcoming surgery, necessitating further absences.”

What Sparked the Complaint?

The complainant said the district ignored repeated requests to evaluate her daughter for a Section 504 plan. According to OCR, the parent told staff in November 2024 that her daughter had two medical conditions, was missing school because of them, and would need surgery. She asked the school to start the Section 504 process. The district claims a counselor told her that the evaluation would begin once she provided medical documentation, but the parent disputes that conversation. Either way, the child remained without formal supports.

OCR’s investigation showed that the district already had several doctors’ notes and letters describing the student’s diagnoses. Georgia’s own Section 504 guidance says an evaluation obligation can be triggered by a student’s performance, behavior or other signs of disability—not just a parent’s request. OCR found that insisting on additional medical records before even starting an evaluation contradicts Section 504, especially when the district already had documentation.

Why do Timelines Matter?

Federal regulations under Section 504 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit discrimination based on disability in programs receiving federal funding. They require schools to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by meeting each student’s individual needs as adequately as those of nondisabled peers. When a student might need special education or related services, districts must conduct an evaluation before changing placements or deciding eligibility.

While Section 504 doesn’t set a hard deadline, OCR noted that long delays can effectively deny access to education. It referenced the 60‑day evaluation timeline in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Georgia regulations as a helpful benchmark for what is reasonable. In this case, the student withdrew from the district before any evaluation or procedural safeguards were offered, despite clear signs she might qualify for accommodations.

Key Provisions of the Resolution Agreement

Rather than contest OCR’s preliminary findings, Wilkes County Schools entered into a voluntary resolution agreement. This does not mean the district admitted wrongdoing, but it did agree to specific actions. The agreement, signed March 19, 2026, does not constitute an admission of liability but lays out the specific corrective actions that follow below

Action Item 1—Assurance to Student

“Should the Student reenroll in the District, the District shall ensure that it will comply with applicable federal laws in its implementation of any existing Individualized Education Program (IEP) or Section 504 plan; or it will, within sixty (60) days of reenrollment and request for an evaluation, complete the process for an IEP or Section 504 evaluation of the Student.

“Within sixty (60) calendar days of the Student’s reenrollment in the District, the Student’s IEP or Section 504 team with the District shall convene to determine the student’s grade-level placement, as well as whether the Student is owed any compensatory educational services for the 2024 – 2025 school year due to the delay in her Section 504 evaluation.

“REPORTING REQUIREMENT: Within seventy-five (75) calendar days of the Student’s reenrollment in the District, the District will provide OCR with any and all evaluation materials and eligibility determinations, should it conduct its own evaluation, as well as any and all IEP or Section 504 meeting notes evidencing the determination with regards to compensatory education services, along with a plan for the provision of compensatory education services, should the team determine to provide such.”

Action Item 2—Training

“Within sixty (60) calendar days of the effective date of this Agreement, the District will provide Section 504/Title II training(s) for all School administrators, faculty and staff charged with implementing Section 504/IEP plans regarding the evaluation process for its students. The training shall be conducted by qualified individual(s) with demonstrated knowledge/experience of the requirements of Section 504 and Title II to ensure free appropriate public education.

“REPORTING REQUIREMENT: Within thirty (30) calendar days of the District’s completion of the training, the District will provide OCR with a report confirming the completion of the training(s), including: (a) the background and qualifications of the presenter(s)/trainer(s); (b) a copy of the transcript(s)/materials used for the trainings; (c) dated sign-in sheet(s) that include the name and title of all administrators and faculty/staff who completed the training(s); and, (d) the District’s plans to offer the training to School staff, administrators and faculty who were unable to attend the scheduled training session(s).”

Final Words

Although the complaint involved one student, the findings are instructive for districts nationwide. OCR reaffirmed that Section 504 and Title II prohibit unnecessary delays in evaluating students with suspected disabilities and that requiring medical documentation before initiating evaluations is incompatible with federal law. For families, the case underscores the importance of documenting disability‑related concerns and advocating for timely evaluations. For educators, it highlights the need for robust training and adherence to both Section 504 and IDEA timelines to avoid OCR scrutiny and ensure all students receive the support they are entitled to.

“Children should not have to needlessly hand over their data and forfeit their privacy in order to do their schoolwork or participate in remote learning, especially given the wide and increasing adoption of ed tech tools.”

~Federal Trade Commission

Last Friday, April 3, 2026, class action notice letters were issued, notifying parents and students of a class action lawsuit related to the platform Naviance. Naviance is used by thousands of school divisions nationwide and plays a central role in career exploration and college applications. The notices were distributed by Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, the settlement administrator, and outline the steps families must take to participate in or opt out of the settlement.

Although the case was filed by the parents of a Chicago Public Schools student, students and parents nationwide are being alerted of the suit and settlement, due to the widespread use of Naviance.

What’s the Case About?

Read more

Overview

Day five of the due‑process hearing against Fairfax County School Board (FCSB) continued themes that had surfaced throughout the week and shifted the spotlight to the staff members who work with the student every day. Testimony came from two classroom teachers, a second instructional assistant who serves as a communication‑regulation partner (CRP), the school’s special‑education department head and, later in the day, a procedural support liaison and senior manager from central office. (I left before the central‑office witnesses testified, so this account covers only the four earlier testimonies.) Also from central office: FCPS’s Crisis Prevention and Policy Specialist attended as an observer.

The witnesses showed how staff adapt classwork; how gaps in funding, training and placement choices still limit the student’s opportunity to show what he knows; and how FCSB gatekeeps communication between staff and the practitioner who trains the CRPs.

Read more

Read more

Read more

Location & Accessibility: The due process hearing was scheduled for March 23–27, 2026. Two additional days are yet to be scheduled. It’s open to the public at the Virginia Hills Center, 6520 Diana Lane, Alexandria, VA 22310. The hearing room is on the second floor of a building without an elevator, so access is by stairs only and may present challenges for those with mobility needs. Grace Kim is representing the family and John Cafferky is repping Fairfax County School Board (FCSB).

Highlights

Words I never expected to say: “I enjoyed today’s due process hearing.”

Day four of the hearing offered an unusual opportunity. Instead of expert testimony and legal wrangling, observers at the open hearing watched the student at the center of the case answer questions in real time. Because he is non‑speaking, he spelled his responses on a keyboard held by his communication regulation partner (CRP) and, later, on a laminated letterboard to show how his communication has progressed from a letterboard to a keyboard.

It was a portrait of what true access looks like—an illustration that the ability to speak and the ability to think are not the same, and that motor skills aren’t mirrors of cognitive skills. Despite motor challenges, he spelled out thoughtful answers to complex questions. He took time to “poke” each letter on the keyboard and, later, each letter on the laminate. His CRP waited quietly until he finished spelling before reading the answer aloud. Observers were asked not to enter or leave the room during his testimony, a small courtesy that underscored respect for his rhythm and autonomy. He continued in this manner for hours.

Read more

Location & Accessibility: The due process hearing is scheduled for March 23–27, 2026, and is open to the public at the Virginia Hills Center, 6520 Diana Lane, Alexandria, VA 22310. The building lacks an elevator, so access to the second floor (where the hearing room is located) is via stairs, and may pose accessibility challenges. Seating could be limited on Thursday when the student testifies, depending on his regulation needs and room capacity. Grace Kim is representing the family and John Cafferky is repping Fairfax County School Board (FCSB).

The Student and the IEP Promise

The student at the center of the hearing is a non-speaking student who faces autism, apraxia, anxiety, and sensory needs. The family’s position was straightforward. In June 2023, Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) agreed in the student’s IEP that the student’s primary communication method required his preferred method of communication (letterboard) and the support of a “trusted and familiar individual” trained in that method. According to testimony, FCPS failed to deliver on this obligation, leaving the student unable to participate meaningfully in class, complete assignments independently, demonstrate knowledge, or interact effectively with peers and teachers.

The parent testified that when she provided communication support at home, school staff refused to accept work completed outside of school. At the same time, FCPS did not supply a trained communication partner in school. The student therefore had “no options” for producing work that would count toward his grades.

Expecting the student to complete assignments only in school without the necessary communication raises concerns of discrimination, too. His peers could choose to finish work at home or after school with teachers who stay late, but he was denied that flexibility because of his disability. Hence, his grades were measurements of the consequences of FCPS’s own non‑implementation rather than the student’s abilities.

Parallels to Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools

The situation echoes Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, where a student who is hearing impaired attended school for twelve years with aides who were unqualified and did not know sign language. Despite his inability to read, write, or sign, the district advanced him each year.

The Perez v. Sturgis case demonstrates that advancing a student without providing the promised communication support can lead to significant harm, and that minimal progress on paper does not excuse non-implementation.

Progress vs. Access

FCSB’s counsel acknowledged that the student has substantial communication needs and that finding and training communication partners is challenging. Nevertheless, he argued that the student is making academic progress, earning credits and working toward a diploma, and that IDEA does not require a perfect program.

Read more

When Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) issued its March 6, 2026, Letter of Findings (LOF) for State Complaint C26‑303, it found Prince William County Public Schools (PWCPS) in noncompliance on two issues and in compliance on another. Notably, several allegations raised by the parent were omitted from VDOE’s Notice of Complaint (NOC) and never investigated.

A review of the parent’s complaint and VDOE’s NOC and LOF revealed flaws in VDOE’s reasoning and legal conclusions.

VDOE’s Analysis and My Unpacking

Below you’ll find VDOE’s analysis from the LOF, quoted as VDOE wrote it (but with personally identifiable information redacted), and a corresponding analysis—an unpacking—of its logic and legal conclusions. Documents referenced appear at the end of the article.

REMINDER:

Just a reminder before we get going here: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I am a mother who turned skills developed during 20+ years in the book publishing and documentary film industries toward special education after Dyslexia and Co. joined her family.

Subissues 1A–1C: Annual IEP Development and Review

VDOE’s Finding

Noncompliance.

VDOE determined PWCPS failed to convene the student’s annual IEP meeting by the December 12, 2025, deadline and allowed the program to continue without a full team review.

VDOE’s Framing of the Parent’s Complaint

PWCPS denied that it violated regulations requiring periodic review of the IEP and argued it offered multiple dates for the meeting before the December 12, 2025, deadline. The division asserted the parent repeatedly proposed meetings on holidays or during winter break and accused the parent of trying to induce a procedural violation.

VDOE’s Analysis

VDOE determined that the last IEP was reviewed December 12, 2024, and therefore an annual meeting was due by December 12, 2025. It emphasized that local educational agencies must periodically review IEPs and that parents must be meaningfully involved, and also noted that schools may proceed without the parent when efforts to secure participation fail.

VDOE determined that while PWCPS documented multiple attempts to schedule an IEP meeting, it still did not convene the meeting by the due date. The LOF faulted both parties. It faulted the parent for counter‑offering dates in a way that “frustrated the process” and the division for failing to convene the meeting without the parent.

Unpacking

The LOF correctly notes that the annual IEP meeting must occur within twelve months of the previous review. Simply offering dates does not satisfy the obligation to convene the meeting. IDEA requires districts to work with parents “at a mutually agreed on time and place” when scheduling IEP meetings and to keep detailed records of attempts if meetings go forward without a parent. However, VDOE’s analysis contains several gaps:

• No mapping of subissues: The LOF lumps Subissues 1A, 1B and 1C under one heading and never identifies which allegation corresponds to which subissue. The complaint alleged that the failure to hold the meeting (1) allowed the IEP to continue without updated data, evaluations or team input and (2) deprived the student of timely determinations about placement and services. The LOF does not address these distinct harms separately and instead reduces the violation to a scheduling dispute.

• Misplaced blame on the parent: VDOE accepts PWCPS’s characterization of the parent as attempting to “induce” a procedural violation. IDEA requires the IEP team meeting to be scheduled “at a mutually agreed on time and place”, and when a meeting is held without the parent the district must maintain records of its attempts to arrange a mutually agreeable time and place. The complaint noted that PWCPS continued to propose meetings at Montclair Elementary School despite the parent’s disability‑related request for a neutral location. The LOF does not analyze whether the division’s proposed times and locations were reasonable or whether it documented its attempts, and instead shifts blame to the parent for declining unsuitable dates.

• Failure to recognize procedural harm: VDOE treats the missed meeting as a harmless scheduling glitch because the student continued to attend Linder Academy. This reasoning ignores that the IDEA’s procedural safeguards are not mere formalities. The annual IEP meeting is the forum where updated data are considered and services and placement are revisited. Courts have emphasized that certain procedural missteps—such as unilaterally amending an IEP without parental consent—are structural errors that vitiate the parent’s right to participate. Even where a “per se” rule does not apply, the Fourth Circuit and other courts hold that a procedural violation denies FAPE if it results in the loss of educational opportunity or significantly impedes parental participation. Thus, a district cannot simply point to ongoing private placement and claim no harm. It must demonstrate that the absence of a timely meeting did not deprive the parent of meaningful participation or the student of timely determinations. VDOE’s analysis does not engage with this inquiry and thus minimizes the significance of the missed meeting.

Bottom line: While VDOE properly found noncompliance, its analysis minimizes the significance of the missed meeting, fails to map allegations to subissues and shifts blame to the parent without examining whether the division’s scheduling offers were reasonable.

Subissues 1D–1E: Parent Participation and FAPE

VDOE’s Finding:

Read more