Whether the student who has a history of developmental delay and has been diagnosed with mood disorder, anxiety disorder and attention hyperactivity disorder but is not currently suffering a significant educational impact, should continue to remain eligible for special education services?
Whether the student who has a history of developmental delay and has been diagnosed with mood disorder, anxiety disorder and attention hyperactivity disorder but is not limited in the life activity of learning, is eligible for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973?
Whether the process of conducting an administrative review of an IEP team's placement determination without parent participation seriously infringed on the parent's opportunity to participate in the IEP process, resulting in a denial of FAPE?
Whether a Virginia school division is required to provide special education services for two students after their military family moved their entire family to a military base in the District of Columbia on May 22, 2007?
Whether the student received a free appropriate public education (FAPE) while enrolled in a Virginia school division prior to the parent's move to a military base in the District of Columbia?
Whether a Virginia school division is required to provide special education services for two students after their military family moved their entire family to a military base in the District of Columbia on May 22, 2007?
Whether the student received a free appropriate public education (FAPE) while enrolled in a Virginia school division prior to the parent's move to a military base in the District of Columbia?
Whether the local school division offered a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in a public school setting to a student who exhibits certain typical autistic behaviors?
Whether the relevant members of the student's IEP team were properly selected to complete a Manifestation review when the student's placement had been changed because of a violation of the code of student conduct?
Whether the student's parents were provided a meaningful opportunity to participate in the student's manifestation review?
Whether any procedural violations related to IEP team selection or parental participation seriously deprived that student or his parents of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the manifestation review process or significantly deprived the student of an educational opportunity?
Whether the student's violation of the code of student conduct was caused by or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to the student's disability?
Whether the student has received a free appropriate public education (FAPE) since being removed from the previous placement based on student discipline?
Whether the school division's proposed individualized education program (IEP) that proposes to place the student at a segregated day facility for severely disabled students would violate the least restrictive environment (LRE) requirement of the IDEA?
Whether the proposed individualized education program (IEP) for the student offers a free appropriate public education (FAPE) when evaluative test scores were inconsistent but educators established that the student made progress in his daily school environment?
Whether special education services proposed for the student for the extended school year (ESY) offered the student a free appropriate public education?
Whether the student's eligibility for his special education category should be revised to provide an accurate present level of performance in the student's IEP.
Whether the school division's offer to provide 77 hours of direct instruction and 7 hours of speech therapy provide an adequate amount of compensatory educational services to the student for certain delays in providing special education services?
Whether the student's parent's repeated failure to send the student to school denied the student an opportunity to receive the free appropriate public education (FAPE) offered by the school division?
Whether the a parent's claim for reimbursement of private school tuition for school years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitation?
Whether the self-contained classroom placement offered to the student by the local school division would have provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for school year 2005-2006?
Whether the student's parents are entitled to reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in their private placement of student in a private school that utilizes applied behavior analysis?
Whether procedural violations occurred in the student's IEP meetings that denied his parents the opportunity to properly participate?
Whether the local school division denied a student a free appropriate public education by failing to convene an individualized education program team within a reasonable period of time so updated services could be offered for the 2005-2006 school year?
Whether the parent was entitled to reimbursement for special education services provided to the student even though the services did not address significant portions of the general education curriculum?
Whether the parent was entitled to reimbursement for all expenses incurred in providing special education services to the student even though the parent failed to consent to needed testing and failed to reasonably communicate with the local school division?
Whether the student is eligible for special education as a student with "multiple disabilities" when the student's disabling conditions include cerebral palsy, cortical blindness, and speech and language delays?
Whether the student will be provided a free appropriate public education in a placement for children with multiple disabilities if the student's individualized education program designates a placement where the student will be required to attend an elementary school that is not the zoned school the student would attend as a typically developing student?
Whether a student was denied a free appropriate public education when a local school division provides special education services to a student when the student arrives at school but before the scheduled time for the beginning of the school day without the student's parent's consent?
Whether the local school division may provide one-to-one services to the student and consultation services to the special education provider at the same time?
Whether the denial of parental consent to adaptive and psychological evaluations should be overridden at the request of the local school division when this testing would be needed to determine the student's current levels of functioning and educational needs for individualized education program planning purposes?
Whether the inclusion model is an appropriate placement, given the severity of the student's cognitive disability and pervasive behavioral issues, for the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student?
Whether placement in the cognitive behavior modification program within the local school division will provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE) for delivery of this student's direct instruction and supplementary aids and services?
Whether the hearing officer had jurisdiction to adjudicate the allegations made by the student's parents that a private school implementing a private placement of the local school division had not provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in compliance with IDEA requirements?
Whether the local school division provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to a student who was privately placed by that school division but was involuntarily terminated by the private school implementing the private placement?
Whether a student who demonstrated significant behavioral difficulties may be placed at a public day school by overriding the lack of parental consent?
Whether a due process case may be maintained against a local school division when the student is no longer enrolled because the student has received a long term commitment by the judicial system to the custody of the Department of Juvenile Justice?
Whether placement of the student at the current elementary school listed in her individualized education program (IEP) is appropriate?
Whether the student has been denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by the local school division through a failure to provide a safe environment?
Whether the student has been provided 15 hours of weekly special education only hours as described in her IEP?
Whether the local school division's personnel improperly removed the student to an interim alternative educational setting for possessing a weapon at school?
Whether the directive of the local school division's disciplinary review officer that the student's interim alternative educational setting not be on the property of any regular school of the division improperly limited the IEP team's determination of the location of the student's interim alternative setting?
