Due Process Hearing Against Fairfax County School Board: Day One
Inside day one of a due process hearing against Fairfax County School Board (Virginia), and what it reveals about how schools quietly redefine “access”
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.
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.