Student Who Uses a Letterboard Wins Rare Due Process Case Against Fairfax County Public Schools (VA), Part 3: Deference Is Not a Shortcut Around Evidence
FCPS argued that its educators were owed deference. The hearing officer said deference is not automatic, especially when the issue is whether the IEP was implemented.
May 23, 2026, Virginia special education Hearing Officer Polly Chong issued a decision in VDOE Case No. 26-016, finding that Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) denied a student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under IDEA.
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:
