Office for Civil Rights Finds Stafford County Public Schools (VA) at Fault for Discrimination Against Students Who Have Disabilities
SCPS forced a student to choose between enrolling in advanced academic coursework and receiving his IEP services.
March 2026, U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a letter of findings to, and resolution agreement with, Stafford County Public Schools (SCPS) in Virginia. OCR concluded that SCPS violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act when it conditioned a student’s participation in an advanced academic program on forfeiting his individualized education program (IEP) services.
The complaint was filed by a parent who reported that, after her son was admitted to a specific SCPS program, school officials told her in June 2023 that he would have to give up his special‑education services to attend. OCR found that SCPS did not convene an IEP team meeting or provide an individualized evaluation to determine whether the student’s services could be delivered within the program. Instead, the student was forced to choose between accessing the advanced curriculum and retaining his IEP.
Evidence of Exclusion and Denial of FAPE
The student, who had been identified as having a learning disability, had an IEP that provided “collaborative English, math, science, and social science, all in the general education setting; and speech-language instruction one time per month.” According to SCPS, “collaborative special education instruction is instruction that takes place in a general education classroom with the support of a teacher assistant or paraprofessional to assist the classroom teacher in working with a student with a disability.”
The student applied for a program that requires that “during grades 9-12, students take four math courses, beginning with Algebra 1, depending on the student’s math experience, and following the Division’s subsequent sequence; four Honors English courses; four Honors science courses, as prescribed; and an engineering and technology course each year.” Although the program name is redacted from OCR’s letter of findings and resolution agreement, this coursework resembles the Stafford Academy for Technology (STAT) program.
After the student applied to the program for the 2023‑24 school year, the program chair said the program did not offer “collaborative” sections and that the student’s IEP would need to be amended to remove collaborative reading, math and science. The parent objected, but the school reiterated that if the student enrolled in the program he would lose IEP services. According to the parent, SCPS never convened an IEP meeting to discuss whether the student’s needs could be met in the program. Instead, administrators told her during an informal July 2023 meeting that her son would lose his IEP if he participated. The student ultimately returned to his home high school.
OCR determined that SCPS’s actions constituted disability discrimination. Its analysis noted that SCPS conditioned the student’s participation on forfeiting special‑education services, preventing him from having the same opportunities as nondisabled peers. OCR also explained that requiring a student to forego special‑education services constitutes a significant change in placement that must be preceded by an evaluation and a meeting of knowledgeable individuals. SCPS, it concluded, did not provide an individualized assessment of the services needed to meet the student’s disability‑based needs or consider how those services could be appropriately implemented in the program, thereby denying the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
Before OCR completed its investigation, SCPS requested to resolve the complaint under Section 302 of OCR’s Case Processing Manual. OCR agreed, and on March 12, 2026, SCPS signed a resolution agreement. OCR will monitor implementation until SCPS complies with the agreement’s terms.
Key Provisions of the Resolution Agreement
Action Item 1—Memorandum
By March 13, 2026, the Division will develop and disseminate a memorandum to all Division administrators and to all staff in the [redacted content] program regarding the Division’s obligations under Section 504 and Title II to: 1) ensure that its policies and practices do not exclude students with disabilities from advanced or accelerated classes or programs, and 2) provide a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities enrolled in advanced or accelerated classes or programs, particularly ensuring that the Division makes an individualized determination about a student’s needs.
Reporting Requirement:
a. By March 27, 2026, the Division will provide OCR with a copy of the memorandum it disseminated, pursuant to Action Item 1.
Action Item 2—Training
The Division will provide training to Division administrators, Section 504 coordinators, special education designees, counselors, staff who are responsible for advanced or accelerated classes and programs, and advanced programming staff to include staff involved in gifted and talented populations, regarding participation of students with disabilities in advanced or accelerated classes or programs. The training must be conducted by a person or persons knowledgeable about the requirements of Section 504 and Title II. The training will include a discussion of the following:
a. Examples of what constitutes discrimination under Section 504 and Title II, including examples with respect to participation in courses or programs.
b. The Division’s obligation to provide students with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in non-academic and extracurricular advanced or accelerated classes or programs, including [redacted content]. The training will reflect that the Division must determine and provide modifications that are necessary to allow a student with a disability an equal opportunity to participate in an advanced course or program for which they are qualified. The Division’s determination may occur through discussion by a group of knowledgeable persons (i.e. IEP team or 504 team).
c. The Division’s obligation to provide students with disabilities a FAPE pursuant to the Section 504 implementing regulation at 34 C.F.R. § 104.33, including the duty of staff to implement students’ IEPs and 504 plans, which may include identified aids and services for participation in advanced or accelerated classes or programs and make individualized determinations about students’ needs. The training will also emphasize that qualified students with disabilities may not be required to forfeit special education and related services as a condition of participation in advanced or accelerated courses or programs for which they have qualified.
Reporting Requirements:
a. By April 24, 2026, the Division will submit to OCR, for OCR’s review and approval, a copy of the proposed training materials and the name(s), position title(s), and qualifications of the individual(s) who will conduct the training.
b. Within 60 calendar days of receiving OCR’s approval, the Division will conduct the training and provide verification to OCR, including: (a) the name of the individual(s) who conducted the training; (b) the date(s) of the training session(s); (c) all training materials; and (d) a sign-in sheet with the names, signatures, and position titles of the Division personnel who participated in each training session.
No Surprise
In Virginia, students with disabilities have often faced barriers to advanced courses and have been forced to choose between accelerated coursework and their IEP services. A common approach is to place students with disabilities in team‑taught classes regardless of whether that placement meets their individual needs. For example, at a recent due process hearing involving Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS), the division acknowledged that an honors history class was limited to English‑learner and IEP students because it was team‑taught; the class size was kept small due to language needs, and the student in question was placed there because more teachers were available, not because it was the best fit for his educational needs. Such practices illustrate systemic barriers to truly inclusive advanced programming.
Unfortunately, in the SCPS case, the resolution is on the minimalist side. It primarily requires policy reminders and staff training. It does not address whether other students have been similarly denied advanced opportunities. Moreover, nearly three years passed between the initial complaint and the resolution, during which the student lost the chance to take advanced coursework while receiving services—a delay that could affect his educational trajectory.
Although OCR’s findings and resolution agreement with SCPS signal OCR’s intent to enforce disability rights in advanced programs, broader reforms are needed statewide to ensure students with disabilities are not shut out of rigorous academic opportunities.