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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

Overview

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

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

Read more

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

Highlights

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

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

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

Read more

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

The Student and the IEP Promise

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

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

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

Parallels to Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools

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

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

Progress vs. Access

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

Read more

When: Scheduled for March 23–27, 2026, beginning at 9 am each day (times may adjust day‑to‑day). Thursday, March 26th, the student is scheduled to testify, communicating using his letterboard.

Where: FCPS Vi…

Read more

February 29, 2024, Prince William County Public Schools (PWCS) lost a due process hearing filed against it.

November 14, 2025, PWCS lost its appeal to the due process hearing.

With the family’s permission, I’ve included complete transcripts from the 2024 due process hearing against PWCS at the bottom of this article. Personally identifiable information for the student has been redacted.

These transcripts capture the testimony that convinced a hearing officer to order public funding of a private college‑prep school and set the stage for a federal appeal that the district ultimately lost.

Read more

What happens when those subpoenas are too broad, duplicative, and/or simply overwhelming?

This article examines three subpoenas submitted by lawyers with the Virginia firm Blankingship & Keith, regarding due process complaints filed against Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) in 2017, 2020, and 2025. It identifies patterns and cites case law related to subpoenas. (Scroll to the bottom of the article to access the three subpoenas). As a reminder: It is not legal advice. If you continue to have questions, consider consulting with an advocate and/or attorney.

The Language of Subpoenas

Subpoenas use commanding language such as "you are hereby commanded" or "must produce", which can feel aggressive, harsh, and/or even accusatory—especially if you’re simply advocating for your child’s needs. Reading a document that demands you take an action—especially when your complaint might be about the school’s history of inaction—can hurt, like salt on an open wound.

Here's what you should understand:

Subpoenas are legal documents. They reflect “legalese”—a style of writing used and/or required by courts and/or hearing officers. The style is serious because subpoenas are serious legal documents.

Even though the language sounds like you must comply no matter what, that might not necessarily be the case. You have the right to challenge a subpoena if you believe it goes too far.

In fact, one parent saw one of the subpoenas in this article within an earlier Special Education Action article, copied it almost verbatim, and submitted it as her subpoena to a different Virginia school district, regarding a due process hearing that parent filed. The result? The opposing school district challenged the subpoena, stating it was overly broad. And yet . . . The subpoena had been written by lawyers representing a school district. This story shows that even language written by seasoned attorneys can be challenged as—and found to be—overly broad.

Common Themes

Although the subpoenas span almost a decade, the language and asks are similar. They make requests for private evaluations and therapy records; inquire about educational programs the parent believes are appropriate; demand communications (emails, meeting notes, and transcripts); request financial records tied to reimbursement claims; and focus on services not previously provided to the school district.

These themes are common in special education disputes in which parents allege that the school district failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), as required under 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A).

Examples of Overly Broad Requests

Request #9 of the 2020 Subpoena states:

“All reports, drafts, correspondence, notes, emails, progress reports and other documents created and/or received by or concerning any private services provided to [Student], including any medical, psychiatric, psychological, educational, counseling, and therapy services or assessments (including but not limited to speech/language, assistive technology, vision, occupational, auditory/audiological), which were not previously provided by you to FCPS, that [Student] is receiving, has received or participated in the past three (3) years, and/or that you are seeking or may seek to have him participate in.”

This request covers any document from any provider, without a date range or specific relevance. It could require gathering thousands of pages from doctors, therapists, tutors, and more—even though they aren’t relevant to the complaint. Just think about all the reasons kids see pediatricians through the years. Under this demand, a parent would have to provide documentation related to ear infections; annual, camp, and sports physicals; vaccinations; a stuffy nose, and for anything else the child visited the doctor—even though none of the visits relate to the complaint at hand.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that courts should not enforce subpoenas that are vague, excessive, and/or unreasonable (McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017)):

“If the charge is proper and the material requested is relevant, the district court should enforce the subpoena unless the employer establishes that the subpoena is “too indefinite,” has been issued for an “illegitimate purpose,” or is unduly burdensome.”

Though this is not a special education case, McLane Co., Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, is an example of case law that is applicable to special education. Ultimately, a decision related to a subpoena can be applied to a due process hearing, even if the case in which it was decided has nothing to do with special education.

Read more

Can a hearing officer force a family to meet in person, rather than virtually, even though the family and/or witnesses fall into the category of at-risk? For example, maybe the mother is receiving chemotherapy and can’t risk meeting in person.

Do they receive updates related to special education, outside of the law?

Can their training help parents prepare for due process?

These are just a few of the questions running through my mind when I submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) for “all of the training materials that VDOE provides to hearing officers, as well anything else related to their training.”

While you might not live in Virginia, the documents provide case law examples you might be able to use in your own hearing—all organized under various topics, making them a good place to start if you’re looking for case-law examples.

Also interesting is the progression of a case like Endrew F., which appears year after year in the training documents, with new information added each year.

2016 Virginia Hearing Officer Training

2016 Hearing Officer Training

5.34MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Read more