Whether procedural errors, such as failure to provide adequate written prior notice or pre-determination of placement, denied a meaningful opportunity for parent to participate in the individualized education program (IEP) process thereby denying the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
Whether the school division offered a FAPE to the student through the June 2006 IEP that included a public school placement?
Whether the student's alleged misconduct was a manifestation of his disability?
Whether the student's Behavioral Intervention Plan (BIP) appropriate so that the student received a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required under IDEA?
Whether, to the extent that the alleged misconduct was a manifestation of the student's disability and/or the BIP was not adequate, the student was entitled to the relief requested?
Whether the student's behavior, that violated the local school division's student code of conduct was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student's disability?
Whether the student's conduct, that violated the local school division's student code of conduct, was a direct result of the school division's failure to implement that student's Individualized Education Program (IEP)?
Whether the local school division implemented the student's IEP by providing progress reports to the student's parent?
Whether the student's placement as identified in his March 2008 IEP was appropriate based on the student's identified disability?
Whether the local school division denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the student by failing to include the student's evaluating psychologist on the manifestation review team?
Whether the student was properly and correctly identified with a disability based on the categories of "developmental delay" and "other health impaired"?
Whether the local school division provided appropriate placements providing adequate special education services?
Whether the local school division offered the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) considering the parent's stated observations regarding lack of progress made by the student?
Whether the student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) of August 2008, that does not provide for "minimum distractions" and a small student to teacher ratio, provides a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
Whether the individualized education program (IEP) proposed by the school division, that does not include a one-to-one aide, provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the student?
Whether the placement proposed by the school division for the 2008-2009 school year, a particular self-contained regional program designed for autistic children five to ten years old, would be a proper placement and the least restrictive environment where this student would receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE)?
Whether the child's 2007 individualized education program (IEP) failed to identify the child's needs so that a free appropriate public education (FAPE) was not provided?
Whether the LEA failed to provide services described in the child's 2007 IEP so that a FAPE was denied the child?
Whether the child's 2008 IEP failed to identify the child's needs so that a FAPE was not provided?
Whether the LEA failed to provide services described in the child's 2008 IEP so that a FAPE was denied the child?
Whether the IEP proposed for 2009 for the child is designed to offer a FAPE?
Whether the child's parents received needed information to allow them to participate meaningfully in the IEP from 2007 through September 2008?
Whether the LEA denied the child a FAPE by denying extended school year services from 2007 to the present?
Whether the child's parents should be reimbursed for private counseling?
Whether the child's parents should be reimbursed for tuition for the Lab School of Washington, D.C., for the child's attendance there in the summer of 2007?
Whether the student's misconduct was not caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to his disability?
Whether the student's misconduct was not the direct result of the failure of the school division's failure to implement the student's individualized education program (IEP)?
Whether there was an adverse effect on educational performance that would support a finding of eligibility under the eligibility category of other health impaired - ADHD?
Whether a student's parents were denied the opportunity to participate meaningfully in the decision-making process when the school division failed to provide a draft individualized education program (IEP) prior to an IEP meeting?
Whether the due process notice should be dismissed because it fails to sufficiently contain the necessary components as described in 34 C.F.R. §300.508(b)?
Whether the due process notice should be dismissed because it fails to sufficiently contain the necessary components as described in 34 C.F.R. §300.508(b)?
