Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mother tells Mecklenburg school board her son was denied prom access; cites IDEA, Section 504 and ADA
Summary
A parent, Jennifer Wilburn, asked the Mecklenburg County School Board to approve her son’s attendance at prom despite a home-based placement, saying school administrators denied the request and warning she will pursue complaints with the Virginia Department of Education, the Office for Civil Rights and the ACLU if the board does not act.
Jennifer Wilburn told the Mecklenburg County School Board during public comment that school administrators denied her son Kaye permission to attend prom because he is receiving home-based instruction tied to a disability placement.
Wilburn said her son has “severe dyslexia” and that the placement decision was not disciplinary but was made because the division determined his academic needs could not be met on campus. She said she appealed the denial to school administrators and the division superintendent and was denied, and she asked the board to reconsider the decision and allow him to attend prom.
“Although this placement supports his academic success, it has come at the cost of sacrificing many opportunities,” Wilburn said. “I am simply asking that he not be denied this once‑in‑a‑lifetime milestone because of an educational placement made by his IEP team solely due to his disability.”
Wilburn cited federal civil‑rights protections and special‑education law, naming the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Section 504 and the Americans with Disabilities Act as bases for equal access to school programs and activities. She said she has contacted the Virginia Department of Education ombudsman and told the board she would file a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights and the ACLU if her appeal is denied.
Board rules read at the start of the public‑comment period state board members will not respond during public comment and that the superintendent or designee may follow up after the meeting. The board did not take action on Wilburn’s request during the meeting; the superintendent’s office was listed in meeting materials as the staff contact for follow‑up.
Wilburn’s remarks put a procedural and civil‑rights question on the record; she said she would pursue administrative and legal remedies if the board does not grant the accommodation she seeks. The board’s next regular meeting and a scheduled FY2027 budget hearing are on April 20, when follow‑up could be reported.
