Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Special Education Discipline Complaints topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents urge investigation into special‑education discipline and transparency at Prince William County Schools
Summary
Several parents and advocates used the citizen comment period to allege procedural failures and discriminatory discipline at Lake Ridge Middle School, cite delays in Child Find and denied services under a 504 plan, and call for investigations into district legal practices and use of NDAs.
Parents and community advocates addressed the Prince William County School Board on April 22 with allegations about special‑education discipline, denied services, and transparency in legal handling of disputes.
"My child was held in isolation for two hours... my child has been excluded, misrepresented, and denied appropriate support," said Brittany Bigelow, a parent of a seventh‑grade student at Lake Ridge Middle School, who said her child had been out of school since Feb. 19 and that the school initially proposed a 10‑day suspension following a March 3 hearing. Bigelow asked the board to "take immediate action to correct these failures, ensure compliance with the disability protections, and put the proper supports in place so my child can return to a safe and appropriate learning environment." (public comment period)
Supporters echoed that account. Shannon Waite said the family had faced delays in evaluation and alleged district practices that disadvantage students of the "global majority," urging an NAACP investigation into discipline practices that she said disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic students. Jabari Baker, the child's father, said evaluations and Child Find referrals were initiated but that his daughter was left without "meaningful education" during the evaluation process and that recommendations from clinicians and an advocate were not followed.
Advocate Kimberly Mehlman‑Orozco raised related transparency and legal‑strategy concerns. She said she refused a $20,000 settlement tied to a nondisclosure agreement and presented an excerpt she attributed to general counsel Wade Anderson advising staff to limit written communications about a particular parent: "Whenever possible, a phone call or Zoom call among staff members needing to discuss matters related to this parent or her children is preferred. Best, Wade." Mehlman‑Orozco asked the board to consider investigations into both special‑education programming and the use of public funds for litigation.
The board did not take immediate case‑level remedial action during the meeting. Associate Superintendent Dr. Ashley Reyher and the special‑education leadership later presented divisionwide inclusion data and described increased use of mediation and other dispute‑resolution options; Reyher noted a year‑to‑year tracking point indicating a 56% increase in formal complaint or mediation scenarios compared with the prior year and emphasized the division's goal of resolving concerns at the earliest level possible.
Board members thanked families for raising concerns and encouraged use of the district's complaint and mediation pathways; no board vote or disciplinary finding was recorded in public session related to the specific allegations raised by parents. The parents said they seek accountability, corrective action, and assurance that students with disabilities will receive continuous access to education while evaluations occur.
Next steps were not recorded on the public agenda; families and advocates can pursue formal dispute resolution, file complaints, or seek independent review as allowed under federal IDEA and state procedures.
