• 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

Read more

More than two years later, FOIA records released by FCPS support what state complaints, parent records, and other documents already indicated. While it was supposed to be addressing the needs of students it failed, FCPS continued to miss deadlines, misreport data, and even tried to limit parents’ rights by redefining IDEA’s two-year statute of limitations.

Mismatched Standards and Definitions

In November 2022, OCR found Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) applied unlawful, “diluted”, standards during the “Pandemic Period”.

A year later, in a November 10, 2023, email, FCPS told OCR it was “working hard to ensure students receive the services and families receive the compensation their teams determined were necessary”. Two months later, in its January 30, 2024, letter responding to Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) state complaint C24-123, FCPS again leaned into diluting legal standards to justify delay:

“The IDEA and federal and state implementing regulations do not contain any specific timeline or required number of days for IEP implementation.”

In addition to a diluted standard, this statement is another example of FCPS attempting to wordsmith its way out of noncompliance. It is technically correct that Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) doesn’t state a specific number of days (e.g., “within 10 days”). However, IDEA is clear that IEPs must be implemented “as soon as possible” after they are developed. FCPS’ claim that no standard exists mirrors the same FERPA-diluting standards that preceded OCR’s findings against it.

SIDEBAR:

OCR’s November 2022 findings against FCPS state the following about FCPS’ “diluted standards”:

“OCR found that the Division failed or was unable to provide a FAPE to thousands of qualified students with disabilities in violation of Section 504. Specifically, OCR found that during remote learning, the Division failed or was unable to provide a FAPE to thousands of qualified students with disabilities and failed to conduct evaluations of students with disabilities prior to making significant changes to their placements and to ensure that placement decisions were made by a group of persons knowledgeable about the students and the meaning of the evaluation data, in violation of the Section 504 regulation at 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33 and 104.35; (2) directed staff to apply an incorrect standard for FAPE that was not compliant with the Section 504 regulation, and categorically reduced and placed limits on services and special education instruction provided to students with disabilities based on considerations other than the students’ individual educational needs, in violation of 34 C.F.R. § 104.33; and (3) failed to develop and implement a plan adequate to remedy the instances in which students with disabilities were not provided a FAPE as required by Section 504 during remote learning. In addition, the evidence obtained to date raised compliance concerns that staffing shortages and other administrative obstacles resulted in non-provision of some FAPE services for students with disabilities; and that the Division did not accurately or sufficiently track services provided to students with disabilities to enable the Department to ascertain the Division’s compliance with 34 C.F.R. § 104.33, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 104.61 (incorporating 34 C.F.R. § 100.6(b)).”

Sec. 300.323 of IDEA states:

“Each public agency must ensure that—As soon as possible following development of the IEP, special education and related services are made available to the child in accordance with the child’s IEP.”

In its guidance document Parent and Educator Resource Guide to Section 504 in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, OCR states:

“Under Section 504, FAPE is the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet the individual educational needs of students with disabilities as adequately as the needs of non-disabled students are met and are based on adherence to procedures governing educational setting, evaluation and placement, and procedural safeguards.35 Implementation of an IEP developed in accordance with the IDEA is one means of meeting the Section 504 FAPE standard.”

In the same January 30, 2024, letter, FCPS blamed the “late consent decision” of the parent who filed the complaint, for delays placing her “further down in the queue”:

“Due to the late IEP meeting compared to other COVID compensatory meetings and [REDACTED] delayed consent decision, her reimbursement had placed her further down in the queue. . . . To date FCPS has made three attempts to engage in early resolution with [REDACTED]. Unfortunately, these attempts have been unsuccessful.”

In reality, the parent had spent about eight months trying to schedule a meeting after FCPS failed to notify her. (She learned of eligibility for a meeting from a friend). The “three attempts” FCPS cited required the parent to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to get IEP implementation—something neither IDEA nor Section 504 allows.

Later, in December 2024, FOIA records indicate FCPS told OCR it had sent letters to withdrawn or graduated students—but families and students still report never receiving one to this date.

The record (FOIA responses and other documentation) shows that—just as FCPS often proposes IEP goals focused only on outcomes—the district focused on checking off OCR’s required outcomes rather than building the skills needed for true compliance. Continuing to push diluted standards is evidence of this.

Resolution Agreement vs. FCPS Practice

Under its November 30, 2022, Resolution Agreement with OCR, FCPS agreed to:

• Appointment of a Plan Administrator “who has Section 504 and Title II expertise”.

• Create a plan that “(1) determines whether students with disabilities received an appropriate education to meet their individual needs from April 14, 2020, through June 10, 2022 (Pandemic Period), (2) makes individualized determinations for each student with a disability regarding whether compensatory education and/or related services (“compensatory education’) is owed . . .”

• Notify parents or guardians within 30 days of OCR approval of FCPS’ written notification. This notification was suppressed to be “be provided without request by the parents or guardians within 30 calendar days of OCR’s approval of the written notification”.

• Develop an electronic tracking system by January 17, 2023, “that tracks each determination made by IEP teams or Section 504 knowledgeable committees regarding compensatory services, including the reason for the determination.”

FCPS’ later admissions show they were not meeting these requirements. They missed early deadlines, did not provide notification to all parents or guardians or graduated students, and were still improvising data reviews more than a year after the resolution agreement’s deadlines.

By late 2023, FCPS admitted its data was corrupted and unrecoverable, and its reports were not pulling accurate information. In its November 10, 2023, email to OCR, FCPS stated:

“We began the analysis of the data from our internal audit; unfortunately, the data was corrupted and the information gathered on the nearly 400 students is difficult to use in its current state.”

In the same email, FCPS said the audit was on hold due to corrupted data and the plan administrator’s departure, promising an update at a December 4, 2023, meeting. OCR had to follow up January 10 and January 31, 2024, before FCPS responded. February 6, 2024, FCPS emailed OCR “apologies for the delay.” Days later FCPS admitted its “report is no longer pulling correct data” (Feb. 9, 2024, email to OCR) and “internal data cannot be recovered” (Feb. 16, 2024, email to OCR).

Sidebar:

FCPS’ admissions of corrupted and unrecoverable data in 2023–25 are not the first time the district has shown systemic failures in maintaining accurate records or complying with basic legal standards. In early 2020—before COVID closured resulted in distribution of computers to both general education and special education students—FCPS was caught illegally charging a “technology fee” to students, including students with disabilities whose IEPs and 504s required assistive technology. After parents raised the issue, FCPS agreed to refund families—returning over $34,000, a process that took almost six months to complete.

Important: FCPS initially limited refunds to families of students with IEPs, failing to reimburse all families affected until parents of students who had 504 Plans again raised the issue. VDOE later declined to investigate because it claimed FCPS had “corrected” the action, even though there was no evidence FCPS had addressed the root cause: internal counsel had advised leadership that charging the fee was permissible.

This episode shows that FCPS’ compliance failures are not limited to OCR’s 2022 findings. Even before the pandemic, FCPS had to be pressured by parents and the state to correct basic errors in tracking, compliance, and reimbursement.

Almost a year later, in a January 31, 2025, email to OCR, FCPS continued to report tracking issues and outstanding meetings:

“. . . every eligible student enrolled during the pandemic period was reviewed. For the reasons stated below, our current data indicates 283 meetings outstanding. However after auditing our records the correct number of outstanding meetings is 17. I am taking the necessary steps to rectify the remaining 17 cases and working with our data management team to determine how to adjust the coding to avoid the errors highlighted in my previous communication.”

In its January 31, 2025, email to OCR, FCPS also wrote:

“With respect to item 4 below, I require additional time to review and correct these items with school teams.”

More than two years after OCR found it in noncompliance, FCPS continued to need “additional time” to address its noncompliance.

Read more

• Fairfax County Public Schools

Fee:

• $875, original quote; $210, quote for amended FOIA request.

FOIA Filer:

• Callie Oettinger

FOIA Request:

“OCR is monitoring FCPS' implementation of OCR's November 2022 resolution agreement with FCPS.

“Please provide all documents, records, and/or anything else FCPS staff, FCPS officials, and/or FCPS providers provided to OCR, specifically for OCR's monitoring of FCPS' implementation of the November 2022 resolution agreement.

“Dates should cover November 2022 to April 10, 2025.”

Amended Request:

After FCPS provided a $875 quote for the original request, the request was narrowed to the following:

“Please narrow the timeframe to January 1, 2024, to May 8, 2025”

FOIA Request and Time Period:

• April 30, 2025: FOIA request filed

• May 8, 2025: FCPS provided a quote for $875 to fulfill the request. The request was amended and refiled the same day.

• May 12, 2025: FCPS submitted revised quote ($210) for amended complaint. $210 was paid the same day to FCPS.

• May 15, 2025: FCPS confirmed receipt of the $210 payment and claimed it needed an additional seven days to provide its response.

• May 27, 2025: The extended deadline (accounting for Memorial Day on May 26) passed without a full response.

• May 28, 2025: FCPS provided what it alleged was a full response.

• May 30, 2025: FCPS was advised its response was incomplete.

• June 5, 2025: FCPS said it would investigate.

• June 13, 2025: FCPS stated that additional records may exist and asked if “you would be agreeable to extend the date for review and production on phases schedule beginning on June 17, 2025.”

• June 15, 2025: I advised FCPS I would be agreeable to its extension request if it provide a full response, at no additional cost, for the period of November 2022 to June 17, 2025.

• June 17, 2025: FCPS provided another response and claimed that, “Upon investigation, additional documents in links and attachments were located within your original production. Those documents are being provided to you now at no additional cost.” FCPS never addressed why, just a few days earlier, it expressed the need for a phased approach to finishing the request.

First and Updated FOIA Responses (VFOIA-10208):

Read more

• Virginia Department of Education (FOIA Response #25-391)

Fee:

• No fee charged

FOIA Filer:

• Callie Oettinger

FOIA Request and Time Period:

• FOIA request filed: June 23, 2025

• FOIA response received: July 10, 2025

• Timeline extension: June 30, 2025, VDOE emailed the following:

“This email is in response to your FOIA request. The VDOE anticipates that it will not be practically possible to provide the requested records within the five-work-day period allowed by FOIA due to staff commitments; therefore we are invoking the additional seven working days allowed by Section 2.2-3704 B.4 of the Virginia FOIA. The VDOE's revised due date to respond is July 10, 2025.”

• Specific FOIA request:

"This is a FOIA request.

“I request Fairfax County Public Schools' certification to VDOE of FERPA compliance, as required by SPPO.

“I request all public records VDOE has that relate to VDOE's continued monitoring of Fairfax County Public Schools for failure to secure educational records.”

FOIA Response:

Read more

• U.S. Department of Education (FOIA #24-00113-F)

Fee:

• No fee charged

FOIA Filer:

• Callie Oettinger

FOIA Request and Time Period:

• FOIA request filed: October 6, 2023

• FOIA response received: June 4, 2025

• Specific FOIA request:

"1) Please provide all letters issued from OCR to Lisa Coons and/or Jillian Balow between Jan 1, 2020, to today.

“2) Please provide all findings OCR has issued on Fairfax County Public Schools between Dec. 1, 2022, to today.”

FOIA Response:

June 4, 2025, U.S. Department of Education’ FOIA response included:

• An email with a link to the September 26, 2023, enclosure letter to Dr. Lisa Coons, for OCR Case #11-23-4044

• An email with a link to the July 27, 2023, enclosure letter to Dr. Michelle Reid, for OCR Case #11-23-1168.

• A PDF with the following:

Read more

• Fairfax County Public Schools

Fee:

• No fee charged

FOIA Filer:

• Callie Oettinger

FOIA Request and Time Period:

• FOIA request filed: May 2, 2025

• FOIA response received: May 21, 2025

• Specific FOIA request:

"This is a request for all letters of findings issued by Office for Civil Rights to Fairfax County Public Schools and all resolution agreements FCPS has entered into with OCR between January 1, 2025, and May 2, 2025.”

FOIA Response:

May 21, 2025, FCPS responded by providing the following letter of findings and resolution agreement:

Read more

However, VDOE didn’t release the original report submitted by Pasternack or Coons’ comments to Pasternack indicating she wanted it revised. The invoices were not released either. This information had to be obtained via FOIA.

Click on the links below to access the correspondence, reports, and invoices.

Read more

This record includes over 100 pages of invoices dated February 23, 2021, covering work Blankingship & Keith did between October 2020 and January 2021.

The invoices indicate Blankingship & Keith performed work related to an Office for Civil Right…

Read more

The three complaints span 2021-2023 and focus on allegations of discrimination related to denial of reasonable accommodations and denial of FAPE.

• Complaint #11-21-4005: Opened April 20, 2021. Complainant alleged VDOE discriminated against her when it denied her reasonable modifications.

• Complaint #11-22-4042: Opened Sept. 2022. Complainant alleged VDOE discriminated against her when it denied her reasonable modifications.

• Complaint #11-23-4004: Opened June 9, 2023. “Complainant alleged that the VDOE discriminated against students with disabilities in Virginia on the basis of disability by denying them a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when it issued guidance—beginning in at least the Spring of 2021—permitting school divisions to offer special education services and supports during the COVID-19 pandemic that that fell short of providing those students FAPE so long as the services were reasonable in light of the circumstances.”

The three notice of complaint letters from OCR to VDOE can be read at the link below.

Read more

10.8.23: Article first published.

11.20.23: Article updated to include original report submitted by Dr. Robert Pasternack to Dr. Lisa Coons, as well as emails between Robert and Lisa regarding the first final report, and invoices related to both reports.

October 18, 2023, Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) released two independent evaluations of its special education program. The evaluations were done by Dr. Robert Pasternack, Sam Howarth, and Nathan Levenson at the request of Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Lisa Coons.

Added November 20, 2023:

September 14, 2023: Date on the invoice New Solutions K12 (Nathan Levenson) submitted to VDOE for $35,000.

Read more

• Virginia Department of Education

FOIA Filer:

• FCPS parent

FOIA Request and Time Period:

• FOIA request filed: June 22, 2023

• FOIA response received: June 30, 2023

• Specific FOIA request:

  "Please provide me VDOE’s Summary Report of the Review of the Provision of Special Education in FCPS."

FOIA Response:

June 30, 2023, VDOE responded by providing the report below. In a separate FOIA response, VDOE provided the data collection spreadsheets associated with the report.

Read more

• Virginia Department of Education

FOIA Filer:

• FCPS parent

FOIA Request and Time Period:

• FOIA request filed: June 2020, when it was suspected school divisions were seeking waivers regarding provision of special education to students who have disabilities.

• FOIA request:

  Letters from the superintendents of Virginia's eight largest school districts to Virginia Department of Education's Superintendent of Public Instruction James Lane.

FOIA Response:

Read more

"Please provide me the summary reports for VDOE’s Core Special Education Assessment results for Fairfax County Public Schools. An example is attached for reference. Please search the period of 2019-today.

"For Powhatan County and Fairfax County, please provide the data collected in the tracking system to monitor the correction of the noncompliance findings that were identified. For reference, see the third paragraph from the bottom of page 2, which available here: VA-B-SPP-FFY20.docx (live.com)”

This request was prompted after I read Virginia's FFY 2020 "State Performance Plan / Annual Performance Report: Part B", specifically the portion on page two that states the following:

"To ensure that all school districts correct any identified compliance deficiencies within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year from identification, VDOE has implemented a tracking system to monitor the correction of the noncompliance findings that were identified through local district self-assessments and the State's on-site reviews. Tracking of noncompliant findings in the self-assessment begins following receipt of the self-assessment reports and program improvement plans. Tracking of noncompliant findings resulting from VDOE's reviews begins from the issue date of the report findings."

Although VDOE was allegedly already tracking this data in one place, VDOE stated it required 8 hours — for a FOIA fee of $175 — to do the work to obtain the records.

Read more

• Fairfax County Public Schools, Virginia

FOIA Filer:

• FCPS parent

FOIA Request and Time Period:

• 2018

• Records related to FCPS setting its IEE rates.

FOIA Response:

FCPS’s FOIA response includes internal staff e-mails, letters to providers, correspondence with providers, and other records related to how it set its IEE rates around the 2017 timeframe.

FCPS internal e-mails indicate FCPS did not evaluate market rates on a regular basis and that it was inconsistent in how much it reimbursed parents and/or directly paid providers for IEEs.

Read more

Compensatory Education

2.92MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

It reads like a report modeled on a deflated balloon. “Full” isn’t a word to associate with it.

At this point in the game, states across the nation have been facing this topic since Spring 2020. Fingers crossed that a) more research is being done and b) that any related …

Read more

That’s what came to mind after reading the email exchange below, between Fairfax County Public School (FCPS) Superintendent Scott Brabrand and Virginia Department of Education Superintendent of Public Instruction James Lane.

Read more

They are between Jane Strong, director of Fairfax County Public Schools’ (FCPS) Office of Special Education Procedural Support, and Samantha Hollins, assistant superintendent of the Virginia Department of Education’s (VDOE) Department of Special Education and Student Services.

Jane explores using waivers to graduate students who weren’t expected to graduate—and asks if an IEP meeting is needed.

Samantha responds to Jane (while blind copying Patricia Haymes, Jeffrey Phenicie, Marianne Moore, and Sabrina Gross), stating, “In a normal situation, a student would be eligible to graduate or he or she would not.” She expresses the “unintended consequences” of graduating students who weren’t expected to graduate and recommends holding IEP meetings.

As Samantha touched upon, there are consequences of graduating students who don’t have the grades, credits, or other requirements needed to graduate. Just a few years ago, NPR, Education Week, and the Washington Post, were full of articles about students being passed in Washington, D.C., high schools, graduating into a world for which they weren’t prepared.

Read more

Thank you to the FCPS special education teacher who was concerned about FCPS' plan and who shared information from this presentation with me, which led to a FOIA request and receipt.

SPEAKERS: Dawn Schaefer, Andrew Guillen, Kellie Cochran

Dawn Schaefer 00:02

“Thank you for joining us for this Blackboard Collaborate session, temporary learning plans with some procedural and instructional guidance. I'm Dawn Schaefer. I'm the coordinator for due process and eligibility and I have two colleagues with me this afternoon.”

Andrew Guillen 00:20

“Good afternoon. My name is Andrew Guillen, I'm a manager due process and special education services.”

Kellie Cochran 00:28

“Hi, I'm Kellie Cochran. I'm the coordinator for special ed related services.”

Dawn Schaefer 00:37

“So our agenda for this session is to talk about the temporary learning plan, talk about the extension of eligibility timelines, talk about special education meetings during this time of school closures. We'll talk some about instruction and staff expectations as well.

“First of all, we are not amending all IEPs or 504 plans, either in Sea Stars or on paper. Instead, teachers will be required to develop a temporary learning plan for each student on their caseload, um, so that we can outline the services that will be provided during the school closure. If you look at this graphic, it explains a little bit about what we're looking at. In terms of plans for students. All students will receive this temporary learning plan, and some students may need an addendum without a meeting or an updated 504 plan to address something specific. Few students may need telephone conference to address initial or annual IEP's or 504 plans or local screening, eligibility, evaluations, 504 qualifications and transfers. And then the least number of students would need a meeting via blackboard collaborate, which is this platform.”

Read more

To learn more about the documents’ backgrounds, read the article “Hot Topics”.

Read more