It opened the review April 20, 2009. According to the resolution letter, it advised JPS of the following in 2009:

“[T]his compliance review investigated ‘whether the District provides free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities.’ OCR ‘look[ed] specifically at whether the District consistently provides a FAPE to students with disabilities by: 1) properly implementing individual[ized] education programs [(IEPs)] or 504 plans; 2) providing necessary [related] aids and services; 3) providing procedural safeguards; and 4) properly preparing disabled students for transition to postsecondary education.’”

JPS requested resolution before OCR completed its investigation. June 22, 2026, JPS signed a resolution agreement with OCR, without a final violation finding.

OCR Case Number 07-09-5004 Resolution Letter

294KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR Case Number 07-09-5004 Resolution Agreement

224KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more

“The Complainant alleged that the Division discriminated against the Student on the basis of disability by failing to respond effectively to a report of peer disability harassment, on or around [redacted content].”

OCR found insufficient evidence that PECPS failed to respond effectively to disability-based harassment.

However . . .

OCR did question whether the division considered the bullying’s effects on the student’s education. Was the student still receiving a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?

Before OCR completed its investigation, PECPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. The district voluntarily signed a resolution agreement with OCR June 2, 2026. The agreement states that it “does not constitute an admission by the Division of a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), or any other law enforced by OCR.”

What Happened

Read more

The pattern appears across the following six cases:

• OCR’s 2017 review of restraint and seclusion across Southeastern Cooperative Educational Programs (SECEP).

• An individual SECEP complaint whose case number points to fiscal year 2019.

• A teacher’s 2015 complaint about Fairfax County Public Schools’ (FCPS) restraint-and-seclusion practices.

• A 2019 federal lawsuit that forced FCPS to change its restraint-and-seclusion practices before OCR finished the teacher’s complaint.

• OCR’s 2021 investigation and 2022 resolution agreement on FCPS’ pandemic-period practices.

• A 2024 Virginia state complaint over FCPS’ delayed follow-through on remedies tied to the 2022 OCR agreement.

SECEP: OCR Left an Entire Service Setting Out of Its File Review

OCR opened its SECEP review Aug. 29, 2017. It didn’t resolve the review until Dec. 16, 2022, more than five years later.

SECEP is a regional special and alternative education program run by eight Virginia school divisions. During the years OCR reviewed, about 85% of its about 1,200 students had disabilities. SECEP had five regional centers and about 70 special education classes inside about 50 comprehensive public schools.

During the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years, SECEP reported 15,713 uses of restraint and seclusion. Some files tied those measures to spitting, profanity, obscene gestures, and insubordination. The records didn’t show whether another danger was present. OCR expressed concerns that SECEP may have used restraint and seclusion to manage behavior instead of reserving them for the most dangerous conduct.

Records were also missing or inconsistent. Students lost large amounts of class time, and OCR found no evidence that SECEP gave them services to make up for those losses.

Additionally, OCR expressed concern that SECEP relied on informal safety or intervention meetings. OCR said they didn’t meet Section 504’s reevaluation rules and often didn’t lead to new evaluations, behavior assessments, revised behavior plans, or IEP meetings.

OCR reviewed 77 files of students with disabilities at SECEP’s five regional centers. It reviewed no individual files from SECEP programs inside comprehensive schools.

More than 100 students with disabilities in those school-based programs experienced restraint or seclusion in each year. About 30 students in 2016-17 and 35 in 2017-18 had at least 10 incidents. OCR later said some may have needed reevaluation.

OCR then required SECEP to review current students from either setting who had been restrained or secluded since 2016-17. However, the review was limited to students still enrolled when SECEP signed the agreement. Students who had left by Dec. 15, 2022, including those who left during OCR’s five-year review, were outside the review.

OCR Case 11-17-5001 Resolution Letter

439KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR Case 11-17-5001 Resolution Letter Resolution Agreement

219KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Individual SECEP Case Was Already Waiting

OCR Case No. 11-19-1090 focused on a student who attended SECEP for seven days. During those seven days, staff used restraint or seclusion five times.

The student’s IEP and behavior plan didn’t mention either practice—and SECEP didn’t revise the behavior plan as the placing school division had advised.

After the third incident, SECEP held what it called a critical meeting. OCR couldn’t tell whether the parent took part or received advance notice. OCR also found no evidence that SECEP considered an IEP meeting to decide whether the student needed new supports, reevaluation or makeup services.

The exact filing date is redacted. The “19” in the case number suggests the complaint entered OCR’s system in fiscal year 2019.

OCR didn’t resolve the complaint until July 20, 2026. By then, the student had left SECEP. OCR’s resolution letter says the 2022 agreement addressed the student’s complaint only “in part,” separate relief was still needed, and OCR was still monitoring the older agreement.

If OCR already had the individual complaint while reviewing SECEP as a whole, why didn’t it address the student’s relief in the 2022 agreement?

SECEP’s quarterly assessments were due by Dec. 22, 2023. Student reviews were due by Dec. 31, 2023. Approved makeup services were to be completed by Dec. 20, 2024. Yet OCR was still monitoring the agreement in July 2026. Its public letter doesn’t say what remained unfinished or what the monitoring found.

OCR Case No. 11-19-1090 Resolution Letter

224KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR Case No. 11-19-1090 Resolution Agreement

123KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

FCPS: Private Plaintiffs Reached Court Before OCR Finished

In 2015, a teacher in FCPS’ Comprehensive Services Site (CSS) program filed an OCR complaint related to the 2014-15 school year. OCR reviewed claims involving disability harassment, failure to follow students’ IEPs, race discrimination in discipline, discrimination against English learners, and restraint and seclusion.

OCR didn’t issue its resolution letter and agreement until Jan. 16, 2025, almost a decade later.

While OCR’s case remained open, six students with disabilities and several disability-rights groups sued FCPS in federal court in October 2019. FCPS records showed that the lead plaintiff had been restrained or secluded at least 745 times.

The parties settled in November 2021. The court-enforceable agreement required FCPS to ban seclusion in all schools by the start of the 2022-23 school year. It also banned several dangerous restraints, sharply limited others, addressed students’ communication needs, and required public reports.

OCR’s 2025 resolution letter noted that the lawsuit was filed while its case was open. OCR also remained concerned about possible denials of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and the need for makeup services because the lawsuit didn’t include FAPE claims.

Private plaintiffs secured court-enforceable changes more than three years before OCR resolved the teacher’s complaint.

Where was OCR before the lawsuit? Why did the OCR case take until 2025? Why did OCR then wait almost seven more months, until Aug. 8, 2025, to post its resolution letter and agreement?

FCPS’s Pandemic Remedy Still Required a State Complaint

January 2021, OCR opened a directed investigation of FCPS’s pandemic-period practices.

November 2022, OCR found that FCPS failed or was unable to provide FAPE to thousands of students who have disabilities. OCR found that FCPS used an incorrect FAPE standard, cut or capped services for reasons other than each student’s needs, changed some placements without required evaluations and team decisions, and failed to create an adequate plan to fix those denials. OCR also raised concerns about poor service tracking.

The agreement required FCPS to name a qualified plan administrator, notify families, review each student’s case, and create an electronic tracking system by Jan. 17, 2023.

Public records obtained from FCPS later showed serious problems. November 2023, FCPS told OCR that data involving almost 400 students was corrupted and hard to use. The audit was put on hold. OCR followed up twice before FCPS responded. FCPS later said its report wasn’t pulling correct data and that some internal data couldn’t be recovered.

January 2025, FCPS told OCR that its system showed 283 meetings were still needed. FCPS said an audit found the correct number was 17.

Families were also waiting for makeup services and reimbursements already written into students’ IEPs.

I filed State Complaint C24-166 over FCPS’ delays and its use of a first-come, first-served queue to provide those remedies. May 31, 2024, Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) found FCPS at fault for systemic noncompliance for delays in implementing IEPs divisionwide, including makeup services and reimbursements.

It shouldn’t have taken a new complaint with another agency to make FCPS fully implement the IEPs in a timely manner.

Final Words

OCR moved too slowly, so others had to force the next step.

Oversite is no more than a piece of paper and hollow words if it isn’t enforced.

SECEP is a public regional special education program jointly overseen by eight Virginia school divisions: Virginia Beach City, Norfolk, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Franklin City, Suffolk, Southampton County, and Isle of Wight County.

OCR styled the complaint as Case No. 11-19-1090. The complaint alleged that SECEP discriminated against the student based on disability when it secluded him during a redacted school year, denying him a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

Before OCR completed its investigation, SECEP expressed interest in voluntarily resolving the complaint. SECEP signed a resolution agreement with OCR on July 13, 2026.

The agreement states that it doesn’t “constitute an admission by SECEP of a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Title II), or any other law enforced by OCR.”

The Timeline Is the Story

OCR was already examining SECEP’s use of restraint and seclusion under a separate systemic compliance review, OCR Case No. 11-17-5001.

OCR opened that review Aug. 29, 2017, to examine whether SECEP denied FAPE to students who had disabilities when it restrained or secluded them. It didn’t resolve the review until Dec. 16, 2022, more than five years later.

Read more

Now the Fourth Circuit has ordered that the private school remains the student’s stay-put placement while both sides’ appeals continue.

The placement is protected for now, but the payment dispute remains unresolved.

Here’s What Happened

Due Process Appeal and Background

When I last wrote about Prince William County School Board v. Lassiter, the parents had prevailed before both a due process hearing officer and a federal district court judge.

February 29, 2024, a Virginia due process hearing officer found that Prince William County Public Schools failed to provide the student with a FAPE. The hearing officer found that a specific private school could provide the student with a FAPE, ordered that the student continue there at public expense and directed the division to convene an IEP meeting placing the student at the private school.

PWCSB challenged the decision in federal court.

November 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge Rossie Alston denied PWCSB’s motion for judgment. He found that the school board’s motion sought relief “untethered” to the claims in its complaint and that its prospective placement arguments rested on a “broad misreading” of the hearing officer’s decision.

He also found that the hearing officer had made the private school part of the IEP process, which meant the placement remained subject to annual review. PWCSB could continue reviewing the student’s needs and proposing a different IEP.

I ended my previous article by asking the following:

“The student will be a high school senior next year. Will PWCSB go the pragmatic route and pay for her to finish high school at the school in which she’s been enrolled for her first three years of high school?”

We now have an answer.

PWCSB chose to continue litigating.

How the Original Victory Was Narrowed

According to the parties’ later filings, the parents paid the remaining 2025-26 private school tuition in advance and sought reimbursement. PWCSB reimbursed the parents $6,700 but disputed whether it owed the remainder.

December 4, 2025, PWCSB filed a motion asking Judge Alston to clarify two points:

1. “With respect to the current school year, PWCS does not owe reimbursement for the entire year even though Parents have already prepaid the tuition for the entire year, rather PWCS’ reimbursement obligation ends on the date that a new IEP takes effect; and,

2. “A new IEP “takes effect” and is “in effect” on the date that it is proposed by PWCS pursuant to 8VAC20-81-110(B)(1) and not the date it is “consented to” by the Parents pursuant to 8VAC20-81-110(B)(2)(d).”

December 4, 2025: Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification of Final Order

108KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

December 4, 2025: Plaintiff's Brief in Support of its Motion for Clarification of Final Order

501KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The parents opposed the motion and filed a cross-motion Dec. 12, 2025, asking the court to require PWCSB to show cause for its alleged failure to comply with the earlier orders. The parents maintained that the private school remained the student’s stay-put placement.

December 12, 2025: Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification of Final Order and Cross-Motion to Show-Cause

149KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

On April 22, 2026, Judge Alston granted the school board’s clarification motion. He held that the November opinion hadn’t determined that every amount shown on the parents’ Nov. 4, 2025, tuition receipt was due. He also rejected the argument that paying the tuition in advance required PWCSB to reimburse the entire 2025-26 school year.

April 22, 2026: Judge Alston's Order

1.13MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Judge Alston concluded that the district court proceedings and the associated stay-put obligation ended Dec. 16, 2025. He ordered PWCSB to document reimbursement through Dec. 16 or the date a new IEP went into effect, whichever was later.

He also ruled that the new IEP could take effect without the parents’ consent. Judge Alston distinguished between an IEP being “in effect” and PWCSB implementing the IEP’s services, which would require parental consent:

“Finally, the parties dispute whether the “takes effect” language used by the Court in reference to a new lEP obligates PWCS to continue to pay The Wakefield School tuition until the Parents consent to a new lEP. The short answer in this regard is no. Such a construction of the Court’s Opinion would permit the Parents to circumvent the main thrust of the decision on the merits; that is, “[b]y making Student’s placement at The Wakefield School part of the lEP, the Hearing Officer made that placement subject to the annual review process for lEPs.’’ Dkt. 75 at 22. Moreover, the Court’s use of the language “takes effecf’ is consistent with the language in 8 VAC 20-81-110(B) which provides that “each local educational agency shall have an lEP in effect for each child with a disability” and that such plan is “in effect before special education and related services are provided.” 8 VAC 20-81-110(B)(1) and (2)(a). This is to be contrasted with the references to “implementation” which require parental consent. 8 VAC 20-81-110(B)(2)(d). Of note, the Parents did not address this argument in their Opposition/Motion to Show Cause.

PWCSB Reported Paying Through December 26

May 21, 2026, PWCSB filed an affidavit from Amanda Mallory, its director of procedural support and compliance. Mallory stated that an IEP meeting occurred Dec. 16, 2025, and that the IEP was “fully proposed” to the parents Dec. 26. For purposes of complying with the April order, Mallory used Dec. 26, 2025, as the date the new IEP took effect.

May 21, 2026: Prince William County School Board Affidavit of Amanda Mallory

362KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

PWCSB calculated that six tuition installments of $3,350 had become due by Dec. 26, for a total of $20,100. After subtracting the earlier $6,700 reimbursement, PWCSB calculated that it owed another $13,400. Mallory stated that a $13,400 check was delivered to the parents’ home May 21, 2026, and asserted that PWCSB had fully complied with the court’s orders.

Both Sides Appealed

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 07-26-1501 and investigated whether BCPS failed to implement provisions in a student’s Section 504 Plan and, if so, whether that failure denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

The complaint alleged the following:

“The Complainant alleged the District failed to implement the Student’s Section 504 Plan during the 2025-26 school year. She stated the Student has Type 1 Diabetes and needs constant monitoring of his blood sugar levels. The Complainant stated the District often neglected to monitor the Student’s levels, causing him to have dangerous levels on several occasions.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, BCPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. BCPS voluntarily signed a resolution agreement with OCR July 1, 2026. The agreement states that it “does not constitute an admission of liability, non-compliance, or wrongdoing by the District.” However, the agreement requires BCPS to take specific actions.

What Happened

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 06-24-1873 and investigated the following allegation:

“[T]the District discriminates against students with disabilities as the playground located at Tarkington Elementary School (School) is inaccessible to individuals with mobility impairments.”

Before OCR completed its investigation or made a final determination, TISD expressed interest in resolving the complaint. TISD signed a resolution agreement with OCR July 16, 2026.

OCR didn’t determine that TISD violated federal law. The agreement states that TISD entered into it “without admitting any violation of law.” However, OCR identified the following compliance concerns:

“The apparent absence of an accessible route from the school building to the playground and swing sets raises concerns under the accessibility requirements of Section 504, Title II, and the 2010 ADA Standards, which require an accessible route composed of a firm, stable, and slip-resistant surface. Natural grass does not meet these requirements and cannot serve as an accessible route.

“Similarly, the wood-mulch surfacing in both the playground and swing-set areas appears uneven and therefore may not meet the Standards’ requirements for accessible ground surfaces within a play area. Uneven or unstable mulch can impede accessibility for individuals with mobility impairments and may not satisfy the requirement that surfaces be firm, stable, and maintained.

“Based on these observations, OCR identified compliance concerns involving the ostensible absence of an accessible route from the school building to the playground and swing sets and relating to the possibly inaccessible ground surfaces in both areas.”

What Happened

Read more

The student and parents prevailed.

The first article in this series focuses on the bigger picture. The second article focuses on the fact that a professional organization’s (ASHA in this case) general position doesn’t amend an individual student’s IEP. The third article focuses on deference to educators. The fourth article focuses on the problems of evaluating a student’s barriers instead of the student, and this article drills into another of the decision’s legal points: parent behavior.

Parent Behavior vs Substantive Grounds

The legal question in an IDEA due process hearing isn’t whether the parent was pleasant. It’s whether the school division provided the child a free appropriate public education (FAPE).

This distinction matters because parents in special education disputes are often judged by their tone. They’re called difficult or abusive, accused of badgering staff, and their emails and frustrations are picked apart and become part of the school division’s defense.

And yet . . .

IDEA doesn’t require parents to be pleasant, to be calm, or to prioritize the feelings of the same public employees whose actions, inactions, and/or decisions may have denied FAPE or caused serious educational and/or emotional harm.

This issue arose during the due process hearing and appeared in the hearing officer’s decision.

FCPS cross-examined the mother and advocate about emails containing disparaging comments about FCPS personnel. The hearing officer described the comments as uncivil and said it was “unwise to put it in writing,” even though the comments were not intended for others to read. But she also recognized that the mother is the parent of the child, that she was emotional and crying at times, and that “some leeway should be given the Mother.” She also noted that criticisms made by the petitioners in their opening and reply briefs “are no different than the SD criticism of the Mother and the advocate.” Her bottom line was the right one:

“This is contested litigation. The focus remains on the best interest of the Student.”

That should be the rule. Instead, the behavior is often the focus—and FCPS’s lawyers have been blaming parents for years, just as they’ve been arguing for educator deference for years (see article three in this series).

In this case, the record summarized in the decision shows why the parent was frustrated. The mother testified that FCPS hadn’t implemented the June 2023 IEP, trained staff, or provided letterboards, and that a year had passed and the school still hadn’t implemented the training. Then there’s the fact that FCPS significantly underestimated the student’s abilities—something the parents, the student, the student’s CRP, the IEE evaluator who worked with the student, and the advocate all knew. Imagine the frustration level.

Read more

The student and parents prevailed.

The first article in this series focuses on the bigger picture. The second article focuses on the fact that a professional organization’s (ASHA in this case) general position doesn’t amend an individual student’s IEP. The third article focuses on deference to educators. This article drills into another of the decision’s legal points: you can’t measure what a student knows while blocking how the student communicates.

Evaluating Barriers Instead of the Student

FCPS previously relied on data and goals that significantly underestimated the student’s abilities.

That is supported by the testimony of Dr. William Ling and by the hearing officer’s own observations of the student during the hearing. The following comes from the hearing officer’s decision:

“When asked questions about The Invisible Kid, he responded that the story was about a reflection of what it is like living in a body that refuses to listen to his brain and “those that never see me for who I truly am.” (3/26/26 Tr. P.14-15) He was able to identify Emily and Celia as his current IAs who are training in S2C to support him. The Student briefly turned around and smiled. There were times, at this point, that he would lift up his left hand and either touch or scratch his face. He was able to identify the letter he wrote to his friend Noah where he expressed “frustration....the thing I know is that Emily and Celia certainly care about me.” (3/26/26 Tr. P.24). At this time, he was not sitting straight and Ms. Berg prompted him to reposition himself. Then he blurted out something. When asked about his experience with Dr. Ling, he responded that it “was exciting....with appropriate support...to show my intelligence.” (3/26/26 Tr. P.26)

“At this time, observers were coming in and out of the hearing room. The undersigned told them to be respectful and not cause distraction as this was the child’s opportunity to testify. In addition, someone’s vehicle was blocking the school buses which caused an issue. After this, the Student seemed to be able to maintain focus and respond to questions while making audible sounds. When asked about a letter to the Superintendent, he responded that he was “frustrated....that nothing had changed....I am advocating for presuming competence and understanding apraxia and they had a hard time with both at Oakton.” (3/26/26 Tr. P.28-29) Then a 10 minute recess was taken. The Student got up and paced back and forth in the area behind the school district attorneys. Once the hearing reconvened the Student continued to make audible sounds. When asked about absences, bathroom breaks and English, he responded that he had challenges staying regulated and in control of his body. The Student briefly switched to letterboard but when asked, he responded he preferred keyboard. (3/26/26 Tr. P.39).

“He testified about the difficulty of being in class when the person supporting him has not learned the letterboard well. He explained that he is then unable to communicate at a level that demonstrates his intelligence, and that it is challenging to express opinions when he is limited in what he can spell. He expressed appreciation for Emily and Celia as his current IAs training tobecome CRPs, and also explained that progress had been slow. (3/26/26 Tr. P.14-44). Despite having testified for approximately two and a half hours, he opted to continue with cross examination. He continued to make audible sounds. The SD attorney asked him who he uses S2C with and he responded “Kelly, Mom, Dad, Emily and Celia.” He was able to explain that depending on who he was partnered with, would decide whether to use laminate, letterboards or keyboards. He understood the training where individuals begin with stencils and then work with a hierarchy of boards. He noted that he always spells with a keyboard with Kelly Berg. (3/26/26 Tr. P.42)

“A ten minute recess occurred then the parties reconvened. The Student described his favorite classes. He did not want to re-take classes where he got a poor grade. (3/26/26 Tr. P. 46) He is able to navigate his iPad and phone for access photos, games, and videos. He expressed the desire to graduate high school and then take some local college classes and participate in advocacy work. (3/26/26 Tr. P. 48)

“Every time the Student was directed to review an Exhibit, his mother would hold the Exhibit up for him. When his posture changed, Ms. Berg would either tap the back of his chair or lift up the keyboard. She would position the keyboard in the same manner and he would continue typing using his right hand index finger. He then switched to letterboard; the Student pointed to the letter while Ms. Berg audibly calls out the letter he pointed to. At one point he got up from his chair and walked around the area. He was pacing back and forth all and making audible sounds.

“The Student again would use his left hand to either touch or scratch his face while still making audible sounds. He got up again to walk, pacing back and forth. His father redirected him and he sat down. Near the end of this testimony, he brought both his hands to his face, shaking and bouncing in the chair. Then scratching his ears. The Student, near the end, started typing faster.

“Ms. Berg emailed a copy of the transcript to all the parties.

“The Student was a credible witness, appeared competent, smart, respectful, and trying hard to regulate his body. His testimony was compelling and observing him in real time was significant. He displayed remarkable patience/control having testified for most of the morning, and he had a good bond with his CRP as he appeared very comfortable with her. He expressed appreciation for his IA-CRPs, Emily and Celia. His testimony is given substantial weight because it directly addressed his communication, the effect of a trained CRP support, and the supports he requires to participate meaningfully in school.”

This matters because the student’s testimony did more than show that he could communicate. It showed why the method of communication controlled what adults could accurately measure.

If he was assessed without the communication support he needed, the assessment risked measuring the barrier instead of the student.

Dr. Ling’s Evaluation

Read more

OCR styled the complaint as OCR Case No. 07-26-1328 and investigated the following allegation:

“[W]hether the District discriminated against the Complainant’s child (the Student) on the basis of disability by denying the Student the ability to qualify for valedictorian, in violation of Section 504, 34 C.F.R. § 104.4, Title II, and 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, RPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. May 11, 2026, RPS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR. The agreement states that it “does not constitute an admission of liability, non-compliance, or wrongdoing by the District.”

OCR didn’t issue a final violation finding. Instead, OCR stated that “the District’s initial application of its valedictorian policy may have discriminated against the Student based on disability.”

What Happened

Read more

The student and parents prevailed.

The first article in this series focused on the bigger picture. The second article in this series focused on the fact that a professional organization’s (ASHA in this case) general position doesn’t amend an individual student’s IEP. This article drills into another of the decision’s legal points: deference to educators.

Deference Isn’t a Shortcut Around Evidence

For many parents of students who have disabilities, the phrase “deference to educators” lands like a bomb blowing up all hopes that the process is neutral. It can feel like the school division’s witnesses start ahead because they work for the school division, while the parent, student, private evaluators, and so on have to climb uphill just to be believed.

Respect for educator judgment can make sense. Educators make professional decisions based on what they know at the time. However . . . Deference has limits. It isn’t a shortcut around the evidence. This is one reason Chong’s May 23, 2026, due process decision is important.

FCPS argued the following:

Read more

The student and parents prevailed.

The first article in this series focused on the bigger picture. This article drills into one of the decision’s most important legal points: a professional organization’s general position doesn’t amend an individual student’s IEP.

In this case, the organization is American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). The issue is ASHA’s position on Spelling to Communicate (S2C) and related methods.

FCPS argued “that the methodology was unconventional, rare, and never been used.” Aside from this being inaccurate, FCPS’s concerns were irrelevant. IEP team members proposed the method within the IEP and the parent consented. FCPS staff members who comprised the student’s IEP team after he transitioned to high school had the right to raise concerns, but they didn’t have the right to delay or refuse to implement the IEP created by their colleagues at a different school.

This Was an IEP Implementation Case

The student’s June 2023 IEP stated that, due to the student’s unique disability-related needs, his “primary preferred communication method” required a letterboard to spell his communication, and that his fluency required support from a trusted and familiar person trained in that communication method. Both FCPS and the parents agreed that the June 2023 IEP was the student’s stay-put IEP.

That language controlled the case.

FCPS had an IEP and the IEP included communication access. If FCPS believed the IEP needed to be changed, IDEA provided a process. Changes could be made by the IEP team or through an agreed written amendment. If FCPS proposed or refused to change the student’s identification, evaluation, placement, or provision of FAPE, it had to provide prior written notice. Simply not implementing the IEP wasn’t an option.

The Letterboard Language Didn’t Come From Nowhere

One of the key facts in the decision is that the letterboard was not some unknown method that suddenly appeared at the high school’s door.

FCPS records from 2021 and 2022 already referenced the student spelling, typing, using a letterboard, and spelling functional needs such as “allergies,” “headache,” “break,” and “lights off.” The hearing officer found that, although the acronym S2C may not have appeared in those earlier records, the absence of the acronym didn’t mean FCPS lacked knowledge of the student’s letterboard communication.

The decision also supports that the June 2023 IEP language was not simply a parent demand imposed on educators. The mother testified that the middle school team was supportive and collaborative, that the team discussed how to set the student up for success in high school, and that the letterboard language was an IEP team decision, not simply a parent request.

This wasn’t a case of parents versus educators. FCPS educators helped place the communication access language in the IEP. Then, when the student transitioned to high school, different FCPS leadership and specialists questioned, doubted, and delayed implementation of the support already written into the IEP.

When High School and Central Office Staff Disagreed, the IEP Still Controlled

Dawn Schaefer, director of FCPS’s Office of Special Education Procedural Support, testified that FCPS wanted to understand how the communication method would look in the classroom. She wanted to observe prompting, positioning, and how much of the communication was coming from the partner as compared to the student. She also acknowledged that FCPS was required to implement the June 2023 IEP as written and that the smooth transition to the high school didn’t happen.

The high school speech-language pathologist (SPL) who worked with the student testified that she believed the student’s AAC device remained important because it didn’t require a communication partner, and she raised concerns about S2C, including independent authorship and emergency communication. All of these are legitimate topics for an IEP team to discuss.

However . . .

Her disagreement didn’t void the IEP. If FCPS believed the IEP was inappropriate, unsafe, unclear, or inconsistent with professional practice, it had options. It could observe the student, collect data, propose evaluations, convene the IEP team, and make a different proposal.

FCPS did not have the right to treat the IEP as optional.

The SLP Chose Not to Observe

The most revealing part of the SLP’s testimony was not that she disagreed with S2C. It was that she maintained her position without observing the student using the communication support at issue.

The following are two exchanges between the hearing officer and speech-language pathologist.

Hearing officer: Why haven’t you observed him with his CRP?
Speech-language pathologist: Because it is not that independent work.
Hearing officer: So is it that you don’t want to observe it, or you came to the conclusion that it’s not his independent work?
Speech-language pathologist: I don’t believe it’s his work.

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.

It’s one thing to have professional concerns. It’s entirely something else to refuse to observe the student working with his CRP and insist the student’s CRP-supported work isn’t his own.

The hearing officer gave the SLP’s opinion about the student’s use of the letterboard limited weight because she didn’t observed him with his CRPs and because she appeared rigid in her view.

Had she observed him, the SLP would have seen what you can view in the video below of the student spelling with Kelly Berg, of Growing Kids Therapy Center. The video has been sped up because spelling this way is time-consuming. While this isn’t a video of the student’s testimony, it provides an example of what those attending the hearing witnessed. The board stays in the same position. There is no prompting the student to choose a specific letter.

ASHA’s Position Didn’t Rewrite the IEP

FCPS’s SLP testified that she is a member of ASHA and that ASHA takes the position that S2C is not evidence-based and should not be used. ASHA’s public materials state that ASHA doesn’t recommend Rapid Prompting Method, also known as Spelling to Communicate (S2C), due to concerns about scientific validity, prompt dependency, and authorship. On its site, ASHA claims:

Read more

The decision is significant in Virginia, too. A 2025 external review of Virginia’s special education dispute resolution system reported that, between school years 2015-16 and 2019-20, parents fully prevailed in only four of 47 fully adjudicated due process hearings, with split decisions in four more. JLARC’s 2020 report similarly found that, between school years 2010-11 and 2019-20, parents fully or partially prevailed in only 17 percent of fully adjudicated due process hearings.

The decision states that the student is eligible for special education under Autism and Significant Communication Needs. It also identifies diagnoses reported in the amended due process complaint, including ADHD, autism, apraxia, sensory processing disorder, and anxiety. The June 1, 2023, IEP stated that, because of the student’s disability-related needs, his primary preferred communication method required a letterboard to spell his communication, and that his fluency required support from a trusted and familiar individual trained in that communication method.

That language became the center of the case.

Read more

OCR investigated the following three allegations:

• “the Student’s teachers failed to provide him with an additional class period to complete assignments and a brain break outside of the classroom with a trusted adult as required by his Section 504 Plan from [redacted content] until [redacted content] (Allegation 1);

• “the Student’s Spanish teacher failed to implement the Student’s accommodations, including an additional class period to complete assignments and a brain break outside of the classroom with a trusted adult, as required by his Section 504 Plan from the beginning of the [redacted content] until [redacted content] (Allegation 2);

• “it failed to respond appropriately to a complaint that another student harassed the Student based on his disability on [redacted content] (Allegation 3).”

According to the letter, “OCR found sufficient evidence of a violation of Section 504 and Title II for Allegation 1, which the Division agreed to resolve through the enclosed resolution agreement. However, OCR found insufficient evidence to support Allegations 2 and 3.”

May 1, 2026, SPS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR. The agreement states that it does not constitute an admission by SPS that it violated Section 504, Title II, or any other law enforced by OCR. However, SPS did agree to take specific actions related to Allegation 1.

What Happened

Read more

The announcement came about a week after leaked drafts for HISD’s “Special Education Success Programs” were made public by local news outlets, and just days after HISD announced the p…

Read more

April 8, 2026, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No. 04-23-1119

207KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The complaint was filed November 23, 2022, against the Miami-Dade County School District.

The complainant alleged that a school discriminated against a student on the basis of disability.

OCR investigated two issues:

“1. Whether the District has denied a Student a free appropriate public education in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 104.33 and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.

“2. Whether the District discriminated against a Student by treating her differently from students without disabilities as alleged, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.4 and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, MDCPS expressed interest in resolving the complaint under Section 302 of OCR’s Case Processing Manual. Under that process, OCR may resolve allegations before issuing a final determination when the recipient expresses interest in resolving the allegations and OCR determines that its investigation has identified issues that can be addressed through a resolution agreement. This case had another wrinkle. According to OCR:

“Based upon recently obtained information, OCR has determined that it no longer has consent to proceed with the investigation of the individual issues. However, based upon evidence obtained during the investigation OCR has identified a systemic concern that can be addressed through a resolution agreement.”

What Happened

According to OCR:

“District witnesses told OCR that for students transferring into the School, they had followed accommodations on IEPs that were given to them for the students. However, the individual student at the center of OCR’s investigation transferred to the School with an expired IEP that was provided to teachers, and while there was some conflicting evidence of a newer IEP being generated, no information received by OCR to date confirms a meeting was held to reevaluate the student and their IEP.”

That’s a problem.

Students don’t stop needing supports because they transfer schools—and they don’t lose disability rights because the paperwork is old.

AND: Teachers can’t implement a current plan if nobody gives them a current plan.

Where MDCPS Ran into Trouble

Read more

April 10, 2026, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No. 04-22-1662

323KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated three issues:

“1. Whether the District failed to provide designated accessible parking for the School gym, an accessible route to the gym, or accessible seating within the gym, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.21-104.23, and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-35.151.

“2. Whether the District failed to provide designated accessible parking for the baseball field and an accessible route to the baseball field, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.21-104.23, and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-35.151.

“3. Whether the District failed to provide designated accessible parking for the football field, an accessible route to the football field, and an accessible route to the football field restrooms and concessions, in violation of Section 504 and its implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.21-104.23, and Title II and its implementing regulation at 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-35.151.”

Before OCR completed its investigation, LCSD expressed interest in resolving the complaint. March 3, 2026, the district entered into a resolution agreement with OCR after OCR determined its investigation had identified accessibility concerns that could be addressed through an agreement.

What Happened

The complaint alleged that individuals who have disabilities could not access East Lawrence High School’s gym, baseball field, and football field in the same way nondisabled people could access these facilities.

School access doesn’t stop at the classroom door. Students and family members attend games. Students participate in athletics, band, cheer, clubs, ceremonies, and school events. If the school hosts the event, accessibility matters.

OCR reviewed the gym, baseball field, and football field under the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design because the facilities had been renovated after 2012. OCR noted that the gym was built in 1978 and that the gym bleachers were replaced approximately 10 years ago. OCR also reviewed documentation showing later additions and renovations to the baseball field and football field, including football stadium renovations as recently as November 2020.

That matters because when a school alters part of a facility, the altered portion has to be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible.

Schools do not get to keep updating facilities for everyone else while ignoring access for people who have disabilities.

Where LCSD Ran into Trouble

Read more

April 16, 2026, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No. 04-25-1454

194KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated the following legal issue:

“Whether the District discriminated against the Student on the basis of disability, in violation of Section 504 and Title II.”

The parent alleged that in April 2025, the district “discontinued the Student’s services in the school setting due to his disabilities.” More specifically, the parent alleged the following:

“[T]he District required the Student’s physician to provide real time, oral responses to its questions about the Student’s disabilities and, because the physician will only provide written responses to the District’s questions, the Student’s individualized education program (IEP) team determined it will no longer serve the Student at his school.”

Before OCR issued findings, WCS expressed interest in resolving the complaint. April 14, 2026, WCS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR after OCR determined its investigation had identified concerns that could be addressed through a resolution agreement.

What Happened

During the 2023–2024 and 2024–2025 school years, the student attended a WCS school “until his IEP team placed him on homebound services April 21, 2025.”

OCR’s letter says the student’s primary care physician wrote a March 11, 2024, letter explaining that she manages a team of specialists for the student’s “multiple complex medical conditions.” The physician wrote that the student required “highly skilled, one-on-one nursing care by an RN” and that only “a one-on-one registered nurse” supervising the student “on a moment-to-moment basis” would allow him to safely access the education he was entitled to receive.

The student also had health care plans. OCR said the student had a Private Duty/Contract Nurse Individual Health Plan, signed by the school nurse April 29, 2024, stating that “only a private duty nurse would provide medical services” to the student at school.

The student’s January 16, 2025, IEP included services such as:

• “adaptive art tools to increase engagement and independence in the academic setting”;

• “adaptive seating throughout the classroom”;

• “30 minutes of language therapy twice per week”; and

• “20 minutes of occupational therapy twice per week.”

The IEP meeting minutes also showed that the parent raised the nursing issue directly. The parent told the team that because the school was not providing nursing, the student was only attending three days per week. The parent also stated that physicians had determined the student needed one-to-one medical supervision to attend school.

A district staff member responded that the student could still come to school, but that attending only three days was the parent’s choice. The parent responded that doctors wanted “RN eyes on him 24/7” and that the school was refusing to provide that nursing support.

Then, in February 2025, the parent sent district staff 49 “District Physician and Medication Authorization” forms completed by the student’s physician. These forms represented the procedures and medications the student needed on a daily basis.

Where WCS Ran into Trouble

Read more

April 17, 2025, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No 04-24-1233

172KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated one allegation:

“[T]he District retaliated against [redacted content] (the Complainant) when it fired her on [redacted content] from [redacted content] (School) after she sent the District an email on [redacted content] that included her concerns with the newly adopted practices for special education students and documentation that showed students’ IEPs not being followed.”

OCR found sufficient evidence to support the retaliation allegation.

April 15, 2026, FCPS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.

What Happened

The complainant was a teacher with 33 years of experience, a master’s degree, and math certification (grade range for the certification was redacted). She had previously worked at the school, and the principal described her in an employment reference as having a positive attitude, great rapport with students and families, and being a strong teacher the principal would hire again.

The teacher later returned when a math teacher position opened up at the school:

“According to District Employment policies because she was starting over at the School the Complainant was a probationary employee for the first year.”

During the 2023–2024 school year, the school adopted a new practice for IEP meetings. Each grade level had a designated day of the week for IEP meetings. Seventh-grade IEP meetings were held on Wednesdays.

According to OCR’s letter:

“The Assistant Principal (AP) stated that under this practice, support facilitators who are staff that provide support to their Exceptional Student Education in reading and math blocks, were meant to schedule their IEP meetings for those days based on the grade level of the student who needed a meeting. If they had a meeting on that day, support facilitators would not be in their scheduled 90-minute general education classroom to provide support to students. However, if they did not have a meeting, they were meant to attend their scheduled class to provide support to ESE students. If a support facilitator were to miss a class due to an IEP meeting, they were supposed to make up those support minutes by being available to the ESE students for extra support during the 50-minute Eagle Advisory classes, which was a homeroom class each student had every day. If the support facilitator was not in a scheduled class on a given day, they were meant to work together with the general education teacher to make sure the ESE students were receiving their accommodations.”

Read more

April 21, 2026, Letter of Findings for OCR Case No. 07-25-1555

158KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

OCR investigated two allegations:

1. “. . . parking for the Friendship Aspire Academy – Pine Bluff Downtown campus is not accessible to individuals with disabilities . . .

2. “. . . the School retaliated against the Complainant after she complained about the parking.”

OCR said its investigation “raised concerns that the School was not providing accessible parking at the School as required by the 2010 Standards, and that the Principal had retaliated against the Complainant by transferring her to another campus.” Prior to OCR concluding its investigation, FAAPCS expressed an interest in resolving the complaint and OCR “determined that a voluntary resolution is appropriate.”

April 17, 2026, FAAPCS entered into a resolution agreement with OCR.

What Happened

The complainant told OCR that she is mobility-impaired and has a placard showing she is allowed to park in an accessible parking space. She alleged that the principal and the principal’s secretary usually parked in the two accessible parking spaces near the school’s front entrance, even though they did not have disabilities. Because of that, the complainant said she was forced to park farther from the entrance.

According to OCR’s letter of findings, the complainant also told OCR:

“ . . . one time when she was able to park in the accessible space, the Principal told her to move her vehicle because the two spaces were reserved for the Principal and her secretary. The Complainant moved her vehicle to avoid any confrontation with the Principal. The Complainant stated that she later complained to the Superintendent of the school about not being allowed to park in an accessible space.”

After the complainant complained to the superintendent, FAAPCS advised the principal that she and her secretary could not park in the accessible spaces.

Where FAAPCS Ran into Trouble

Read more