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

April 28, 2026, OCR Letter of Findings

193KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The student had a Section 504 Plan and had tried out for a school team for the 2024–2025 school year. OCR investigated two allegations:

1. “[T]he Division discriminated against the Student on the basis of disability by not affording her an equal opportunity to participate on the [redacted content] Team for the 2024-2025 school year. . .”

2. The division “fail[ed] to respond appropriately to a complaint of disability-based harassment the Complainant made on April 26, 2024.”

OCR found insufficient evidence to support the first allegation—but did identify concerns with the second allegation.

April 24, 2026, WCPS entered into a resolution agreement requiring a reinvestigation, staff training, and a memorandum reminding staff to route possible disability-discrimination complaints to the Section 504 coordinator.

Read more

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

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

Read more

Read more

According to the agency’s press release, the district voted to discontinue its Elementary Life Skills program for the 2026‑2027 school year, t…

Read more

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 disab…

Read more